Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive770

The Toven

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not sure if this is the right place for this, but the user The Toven has lashed out at two editors, Sionk and Snowysusan, and made accusations at WikiProject San Diego after attempting to create autobiographical articles about his band and albums using the Articles for Creation process and has referred to previous attempts at creating similar articles in mainspace that date back five years. -Mabeenot (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's any immediate administrative action needed here. The Toven (talk · contribs) and/or 72.214.60.108 (talk · contribs) do need some assistance with understanding the notability guidelines, but that's assistance that any user can provide, not just admins. —C.Fred (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

That's what some of us have been trying to do. Our reward has been an increasing level of abuse.[2] The user needs to be warned not to attack other editors. --MelanieN (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I have 'awarded' the user with a level 4im personal attack warning. He has also 'lashed out' at myself on Sionk's talkpage. This kind of behaviour from any editor is not acceptable. Osarius - Want a chat? 16:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Possible socking threat: [3]. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I have been dealing with The Toven as well on my talk page. He has not quit since the warning from Osarius... The Toven is also unsigning his posts, as seen [[4]]. Wywin (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• OK, seen enough. Blocked indef for disruptive editing, and he appears to be only here to create promotional articles about topics he has some relation to. The Toven can be unblocked anytime he gains some WP:CLUE about the correct way to edit Wikipedia. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of programs broadcast by Fox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi everyone. There is currently a content dispute and edit warring at List of programs broadcast by Fox regarding the recent expanision of its content for FL status. I actually added lots of details there for FL per WP:FL?, and Vjmlhds has reverted those many times, and I have also reverted back slumberous times. He say that no other "list of programs" articles has those details, (those are regular List-class article, not FLs, so there not really "model articles"). He/she also stated that "it's a matter of article format. There are pages for the history of the networks, and pages like this that are strictly lists. What you're doing is gunking up the works needlessly by adding WP:CRUFT", disagree, take a look at every list at WP:FL, which contains some details. WP:CRUFT doesn't apply in this very case. Earlier today, Davejohnsan requested full page protection for now for us to solve the dispute, but it isn't working. I strongly believe this information is required per the above, and edit summaries at the Fox programs list edit history. Where should we go from here? Thanks so much! TBrandley 00:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, both of you stopping the 8RR edit war immediately would be a good start. Dayewalker (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but this has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, as it better works there, another user is also there. Regards, TBrandley 01:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moving a page to a salted name 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It happened again! I just did an early close at Talk:Die Young (Ke$ha song), but Die Young (Kesha song) is salted. Almost like it's not a good idea to salt articles that will almost certainly be created at some point. --BDD (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The article was deleted three times, so I reported the matter to the person who performed the most recent deletion. See User_talk:Reaper_Eternal#Die_Young_(Kesha_song) Digifiend (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Moved. Thanks for helping out at RM, BDD. Jenks24 (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does it bother anyone else that (a) this article is eligible for speedy deletion, as it is essentially the same as the article deleted at an AFD 10 days ago, and (b) the current article violates copyright, because it is clearly based on the now deleted article that used to be at that title? Sometimes pages are salted for a reason, and it's worth asking the admin who salted it and waiting for their reply. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the old versions, so at least there's not a copyright violation anymore. A G4 deletion would make sense, but I don't have the energy to argue with the people who've recreated the page at least 5 times after it was deleted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, sorry Floq. I generally do check these things and I had meant to in this case, but I got in a rush about something IRL and got distracted. Apologies. If you or anyone else thinks it's G4-able, go for it. Jenks24 (talk) 01:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry Jenks24, my snark is directed at you and BDD and Digifiend when it should be directed at the people who've recreated the article 5 times with no consequences. I'm not going to G4 it myself, because I won't be online much longer to face the inevitable disagreement with a G4, probably along the lines of "the single is [supposedly] going to released tomorrow", and "the third sentence is different so it isn't exactly the same", and "there's another source now, so do another AFD". --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're ever willing to try and talk some sense into people at WT:CSD, please do; god knows we could use it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Since the single is mentioned both at the article on her and the discography one, may be next time turn it in to a protected redirect to one of these? Nil Einne (talk) 08:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I originally asked for the article titles to be salted when I proposed the second(?) speedy, because (as already pointed out above) someone tried to recreate the article several times within quick succession after the conclusion of the AfD. They then vandalised the Black Sabbath Die Young article in another attempt. The Kesha article was based on Twitter announcements and a general statement by Kesha at a red carpet event. Whether its a redirect or something else, IMO it definitely needs protecting for now. From what I've sen from my watchlist the title has been salted for 2 months, which seems not unreasonable. Sionk (talk) 12:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It is now protected as a redirect for two months. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

May I ask why the talk page was completely deleted? That's vandalism you know. Digifiend (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Is it? dangerouspanda 09:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

No, talk pages for deleted articles can be deleted at any time per WP:CSD#G8 - "Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page." However, if there's important discussion in the talk page you want to access, an admin (or friendly panda) may be able to get it back for you. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Triggercon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

This user seems to be posing as an administrator by issuing tags or messages that makes it appear the user has been blocked, when in fact, they have not (as far as I can tell, anyway) (e.g. [5] [6] [7] [8]). This is obviously inappropriate and disruptive behavior, particularly for new users. Can an administrator please take care of this? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Triggercon is a two-day-old account. Obviously not an admin. It seems to be an SPA where the SP is to claim different users are "blocked" without warning and without any authority to implement a block or ban. Almost every edit from Triggercon over the last two days has been disruptive. His edits need to be reverted immediately (especially those that are clearly in breach of WP:NEWCOMER, where he has posted on new user talk pages) and a block, in my opinion, is absolutely in order. Crazy stuff. Stalwart111 (talk) 06:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked by User:Boing! said Zebedee. --Rschen7754 06:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Nicely done. Stalwart111 (talk) 06:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing by User:TheRealCrews

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:The Real Crews submitted an article to AfC which I declined last week because it did not have sources to prove the claims in the article or the subject's notability. TRC denied anything was amiss with their article, reverted my action and, subsequently this week, moved the draft article to mainspace unchanged - see Jamey Harrow.

Because the article claimed the subject had won multiple awards, but provided no proof, today I nominated the article for an Afd discussion. TRC removed the AfD template from the article and, in apparent retribution, PROD'd [9] an article, ROA (artist) I had written for deletion. As is my right, I removed the template [10] because it seemed obviously disruptive action on their part.

TRC has now added an AfD template [11] to the same article, but not launched an AfD (I'm guessing as they are a new editor they don't understand the process). I can't remove the template myself, though it seems to be serving no purpose. NB the other party has subsequently completed the WP:POINT-ey AfD nomination.

TRC has removed the AfD from Jamey Harrow twice [12] [13] and I've subsequently replace it twice and warned them [14] [15] not to repeat their action.

Obviously because it seems the editor is being uncooperative and claiming 'ownership' of their article [16] [17] [18], it might not solve matters for me to deal with the sittuation as a personal tit-for-tat, so I'd appreciate secondary help or advice. Thanks. Sionk (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Sionk (talk) was asked twice prior to this event not to edit the page in question and allow someone with an understanding of the subject. Deletion tags were taken down on his part on pages he had created as well therefore he is guilty of the same infraction. Deletion tags on my end were taken down due to reviewers previous vandalism of the page. They have been now left alone and the case has been stated. The page in question did not need to be changed as all guidelines had been met and the requested citations had been added however the reviewer refused to acknowledge them. The sources were updated contrary to the statement above I would also appreciate some secondary advice. --TheRealCrews (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Please re-read the AfD template from the top of the Jamey Harrow article, especially the part which says this notice must not be removed. In addition, you might want to re-read the PROD template, which allows that template to be removed at will. Please note that, when YOU add an AfD template to an article, you MUST complete the process to nominate the article for deletion, explaining why you think the article should be deleted. In addition, please read WP:POINT. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You also falsely claimed that the article was "Accepted" when you moved it from AfC into article space. In addition, the article at AfC was initially created by User:ThunderousMastering, which not only is a COI violation, but a violation of Username because of the promotional nature of the name. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

User:ThunderousMastering Has been told not to edit further on their talk page, tagging the article accepted when moving it was the wrong thing to do, my apologies. I stand by my statement that :Sionk (talk) nominated the article for deletion because his review was discredited due to the vandalism on my page and all the complaints on his talk page about his reviewing. --TheRealCrews (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Please indent your comments so that the discussion is easier to follow. I've corrected the indenting above. Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have a misunderstanding of what constitutes vandalism. Sionk asked you to not remove the tags and said you were welcome to participate in the discussion. You cannot pick and choose who edits which articles. There is no concept of ownership on Wikipedia. A live article can be edited by whomever has a contribution to make, or in some cases, a claim to dispute. This is not the first time an editor has felt passionately about an article that has been nominated for deletion. It happens often. If the article is deleted and you wish for it to be recreated, build it in a sandbox and find reliable sources. Until then, participate with other articles. Find a project you're interested in. 68.200.150.22 (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh good another unsigned in user who shows up to defend Sionk, amazing the article was up for review for weeks and nothing but you guys just come out of the woodwork to support him within only a few hours. Thanks for your input possible Sock of Sionk (talk) --TheRealCrews (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhps the anon should have linked to WP:OWN and WP:DELETE, so you can see that these are two official site policies, not just something someone felt like saying to piss you off. You don't have to like it, but you are not free to disregard it if you wish to participate in editing here. DMacks (talk) 04:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems WP:AGF needs to be linked, too. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Just when you bring up AGF.... – Connormah (talk) 04:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Wearing my SPI clerk hat, I've deleted that SPI case per our usual practice with bad faith SPIs, and, wearing my admin hat, I've closed the retaliatory AFD as speedy keep, per WP:SK #2b. It's a more interesting question whether a block is needed here, or perhaps TRC will take the hint... T. Canens (talk) 05:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely amazing this guy harasses me, you ignore every insult and accusation towards me but then delete all my concerns which were ALL valid. The fact that no admins or reviewers on this website seem to want to help at all is ridiculous. --TheRealCrews (talk) 06:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

TRC, it is of course possible that you're right and that Wikipedia is a failsite full of idiots ready to vandalise and insult the work of folks like yourself. However another possibility is that the reason you are feeling ganged up on is because you are the one out of step. This isn't necessarily your fault; why should it be OK to remove a PROD notice and not an AfD one? Why shouldn't things you personally know to be true be included in an article? As a newcomer you're not to know the answers to these questions. The unfortunate fact is that the size and prominence of Wikipedia mean there are some rules about what is and isn't OK, and to a necomer they seem pretty arbitrary. However they have grown up for a reason and there's no bucking them; if you don't like them, you'll need to find somewhere else to post your information. If you don't understand them but would like to figure them out that's another matter - any of us here will gladly explain how they work. But carrying on ignoring them after you've been told about them is not going to get the result you hope for. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

TRC, what the various people here want to do is for you to slow it down and get familiar with the various policies that have been linked to. There is a veritable alphabet soup of pages that we tend to throw at each other and those of us who have been here a while generally know the most important ones. However, new editors, like yourself, who jump into the deep end often get tangled by the spaghetti like mess and end up being wound up and frustrated by the whole kerfuffle. As it is, I have no horse in this race so I'm suggesting that you ask that the article be usefied, which is have it transferred to your userspace, so you can work on it there and get to grips with things like notability and reliable sourcing. Check for wikiprojects that your article may be relevant to and seek advice on what to do if you get stuck. I think this is less disruptive editing so much as it's a first time article submitter getting buried under the morass that is wikipedia's policies. Blackmane (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I tried to approach TRC on his talkpage about this, encouraging him to consider sandboxing the article and to work on other articles and join a project to get a better feel of how things can be done. I don't think I was heard. I did tell him that I observed his combative nature could be problematic and lead to restrictions on his editing if he continued, going so far as to clarify it was not a threat, but an observation. I don't believe the advice given is sinking in, or being acknowledged. There may be a wp:competence issue. 192.76.82.89 (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Possibly the author(s) of the article is/are also the subject, which would explain why they are taking the issue as a personal insult. That's the perils of writing about things that are too close! I can't think of any other explanation why they refuse to listen to any advice or contrary opinion from anyone. The continual personal goading is quite distressing too! That'll teach me not to work at AfC when there's an 1100 backlog of frustrated new editors, eh!! Sionk (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Well guess what. I ran a check on User:ThunderousMastering and it turns out he's also editing as User:TheRealCrews. ThunderousMastering was indeff'd for the username violation (its Jamie Harrow's company) at 17.00 yesterday, but prior to that had edited alongside TheRealCrews. I have indeff'd TheRealCrews as a sock account because of that (otherwise I would have treated it as a rename as he had been asked previously to rename the account). If Jamie Harrow wants to edit Wikipedia on any subject other than himself, and agrees not to sock, I would not be opposed to an unblock. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oops- I spelled the name wrong

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I made an article about Slobodan Martinovic. Problem is, I spelled his name wrong. It ends with a ć, not a c. Can someone change that? Legolover26 (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Article moved to Slobodan Martinović - please use WP:RM in future, or feel free to move it yourself as uncontroversial. Regards, GiantSnowman 20:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know that what I was requesting consisted of a move, and I thought it had to be done by admins. I must be a noob. Wait a minute. I've been here for a year. That can't be. Oh, well. I have a lot to learn. There is so much stuff on Wikipedia that it takes more than 11 years to fugure it all out. Legolover26 (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not that I necessarily care all that much, but I thought the practice here was to NOT use diacritical marks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

That would be a whole new can of worms. However, at least people are using RMs &c these days and asking the community for a move, which is a great improvement on the recent diacritical move-wars, and reduces the amount of diacritical-drama which appears here on AN/I. bobrayner (talk) 10:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I've always used diacritical marks with no issues. GiantSnowman 10:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Runaway edit-warring by Maurice07

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Maurice07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has taken upon himself to move Turkey to Europe without consensus. To that end he is edit-warring across many articles changing Turkey's diplomatic missions to Europe instead of Asia. I think a preventative block is warranted for this user until he understands that he cannot edit-war on such a massive scale. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not a good thing. Looking into this. --Rschen7754 06:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocking for 48 hours; I thought about warning but [19] is pretty telling. --Rschen7754 06:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{Post-close comment}}, as appears fashionable these days. It might possibly appear that a few of this new editor's WP:USERBOX-s may in some ways be construed as "I am here to pick fights". I would venture to suggest a contention that there may be a plausible chance of a possibly less than favourable outcome in this particular circumstance.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Puppet?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

[20], likely puppet of Bisexual Warrior, who is another puppet. Insomesia (talk) 07:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPI is thataway... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Complex copyright/user issue

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• NewsCanadaInc (talk · contribs)
• CreativeCanadaCorp (talk · contribs)

I took a look at AFD this morning and saw a couple of article on gangs in Calgary (FOB vs. FOBK Gang War and Calgary's Gang War Revenge). These were obviously copied from elsewhere, and I was able to find sources for both. These articles were almost entirely the work of User:NewsCanadaInc, who also worked on The Babez Crew. This article was also edited by User:CreativeCanadaCorp, who worked on almost nothing else, and also by an IP in Calgary.

I'm having a hard time working out what to do here. NewsCanada bills itself as a source of "copyright-free articles" but I have doubts that they could be used on our terms; I was unable to find a specific "Creative Canada" except for a nonworking website. As they stand, the articles mostly have serious tone and POV issues, and I question whether NewsCanada, if it prove to be the actual source of these articles, would prove to be a reliable source by our standards. Ordinarily this would go to several different noticeboards, but it seems to me that it needs to be dealt with as a single issue, so I've put it here. Mangoe (talk) 12:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Username blocks need to be issued for one thing. Blackmane (talk) 12:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I've closed the AFD's for FOB vs. FOBK Gang War and Calgary's Gang War Revenge and deleted the articles as unambiguous copyright violations. The general topic of gang activity in Calgary seems notable and interesting, but that is another matter. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Death Threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hope this is the right place. Just received this after removing attacks that 89.168.178.195 left on Talk:Jerusalem with these edits. SassyLilNugget (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP after a (possibly unrelated) report at AIV, but I saw the above threat in the contribution history. SassyLilNugget, if you are at all concerned, please contact emergency@wikimedia.org as well as posting here. The IP geolocates to Birmingham, UK, if that eases your mind at all. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it does ease my mind. I will keep it in mind to email if this ever happens again. Thanks again for the quick resolution, SassyLilNugget (talk) 13:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Yuk. I've Revision Deleted the edits to Talk:Jerusalem and to your talkpage. No need to keep them around. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Elen; should have thought to do that myself. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:GregJackP and possible canvassing at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list

GregJackP has quite legitimately posted at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list, asking for help in improving the article Censorship in Islamic societies, which is currently subject to an AfD discussion. However, the posting also stated that "In addition, there is content dispute based on an overly narrow definition of censorship. There is currently an RfC, so imput on that would also be helpful in getting this article saved". [21] This appeared to me to be canvassing, in that it was improperly asking for support for a particular position at the RfC, and accordingly I commented on this in the thread. [22]. In reply GregJackP wrote that "... if you feel it was canvasing, file a complaint. Otherwise, keep your mouth shut and your opinion to yourself, as these type of unfounded accusations have been addressed over and over again. Guess what - it's not canvassing". [23] Since I'm not interested in 'guessing' whether it was canvassing or not, I'll ask the question here: was it canvassing, and if so, what action (if any) should be taken about it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• The tone of his proclamation at ARS was definitely not neutral. (Disclosure: I !voted to delete that article.) Tijfo098 (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • What tone are you reading into this? Seems neutral to me. And work was being done on the article, but edit warring kept going on, and it is now locked from future editing. Dream Focus 15:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding what is going on with article content, that wasn't the issue. As I said, posting at ARS asking for help including an article is legitimate - but canvassing for support at an RfC isn't. How can a request for input at an RfC (which is beyond the ARS remit) which states that "there is content dispute based on an overly narrow definition of censorship" be neutral? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Asking for help at ARS with improving the article to save from deletion = fine. Suggesting that editors of a certain persuasion weigh in on an RfC related to that = definitely not fine, in exactly the same way it would be if the target was an AfD instead of an RfC. Being incivil to someone pointing that issue out = simply compounding the problematic behaviour. GrepJackP has some explaining to do here. Black Kite (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't have the ability to pull diffs effectively right now (I'm on my phone), but will respond more fully later. In brief, I asked for help in saving an article at ARS, and worded it neutrally, including all the factors involved. As to asking editors of a certain persuation? I think that it is fairly clear that I'm a deletionist - yet I'm on ARS all the time, as are others who are deletionists. Not all of those who are at ARS are of a single viewpoint. In addition, the article was at AFD at the same time, and in the past posting a notice at ARS has been held to not be canvassing. Perhaps I was a tad incivil, but it is really irritating to be accused of canvassing everytime something is posted to ARS. GregJackP Boomer! 16:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• As recently as June of this year, there was an RfC about ARS and canvassing [24]. The RfC came to two conclusion that really relevant here, 1) that "The project is designed to improve articles, not participate in AfDs, and members who forget this should be reminded;" and 2) that "Editors who believe that the group has bias are welcome to join it to make it more neutral." The "canvassing issue was found not to be a problem when neutrally phrased notices were used.

The issue has come up numerous time, every time someone makes an ARS notification. It is time for that to end, and users should assume good faith instead of immediately crying out "canvassing" instead of assuming good faith and believing that the other party believes that the article can be saved.

I'm a deletionist, and the people at ARS know that. Its not a secret, I've joked with some of them about being deletionist. That doesn't mean that articles that are viable to the project don't need to be saved, and I've done my share of that too. This is one of those cases, where the article can be saved. There are plenty of good references, but they keep getting deleted from the article by Roscelese [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], and [31]. That was 7 reverts in 3 days, and one of the reasons that I went to ARS, hoping to find a way to save the article. I haven't dealt with WP:COATRACK issues much, and I needed help, not in !votes (it was about 50-50 on the AFD, and RFC was about 24 hrs old (and hadn't yet posted to the RFC pages). I needed help in how to get the material from the various academic sources into the article so that Roscelese could not make the "coatrack" argument. GregJackP Boomer! 23:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

If the "help" you were seeking is "help me find an innovative way of putting the irrelevant information into the article since I wasn't able to do it on my own" rather than "help me understand why my understanding of policy was incorrect before so I can edit better in the future," you are doing it wronb. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope, it was asking for help on how to deal with an editor that doesn't follow policy, not on what the policy is. GregJackP Boomer! 03:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

As a sidenote, how should one deal with such blatant disregard of discussion? I know that she has had these issues in the past, [32], but she is clearly not open to any discussion on the matter. GregJackP Boomer! 23:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Whine, whine, whine. A click of the mouse will show that you didn't have consensus for any of your edits, so what could you possibly hope to gain from making yourself into an innocent victim? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there is consensus. Clear consensus on not requiring academic sources, clear consensus that the word "censorship" does not have to appear in the source as long as it is clear from the context, and consensus on the amended definition. In addition, there was absolutely no consensus for your repeatedly removing sourced material, nor for your edit warring. Finally, on the AfD, it is even, and the arguments of the Keep !votes are much stronger than the weak arguments on the delete side. GregJackP Boomer! 03:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

A 'consensus' to ignore policy is meaningless... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Since there wasn't a consensus to "ignore policy" I have no idea what you're talking about. Rocselese was the one that suggested only "academic" sources be used, consensus (and policy) states that only reliable sources are needed. There is no policy that a specified word has to be in the source, despite what she claimed. Consensus of the community agreed. Finally, there are numerous articles and projects that use working definitions, and no policy either for or against that. The community came to a consensus what definition should be used in this article, after compromise (i.e., it wasn't the original one proposed, but was modified to obtain consensus). GregJackP Boomer! 03:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

As a courtesy, here's the text in full:

“ This article has potential and what I believe are pretty good sources. It was nominated for deletion based on WP:OR and what appears to be a dislike of the subject matter. After I started to work on the article by adding several academic sources, those advocating for deletion started to argue that it was WP:COATRACK. I don't believe it is, but I don't know how to address that argument, so help in rewriting the article would be appreciated.

In addition, there is content dispute based on an overly narrow definition of censorship. There is currently an RfC, so imput on that would also be helpful in getting this article saved. GregJackP Boomer! 10:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

”

The only unstated (but easily inferrable) info is that the "delete COATRACK" AfD !votes were made by those arguing (there and in the RfC) that material not classifiable as censorship had been added. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Doesn't seem luike egregrious canvassing to me, the wording about "overly narrow definition" I think could well simply be an unconscious failure to be completely neutral. I would be happy to assume good faith here and simply let GregJackP know that the wording is not sufficiently neutrally worded and that we expect future notices to be more neutral. The fact that he didn't himself agf with Andy is a problem but also not meriting more than an admonition to communicate in a collegiate spirit.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• I can see how "overly narrow definition" could be seen as not completely neutral, and I will strive to be more careful about my choice of words in the future. GregJackP Boomer! 22:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think WP:Canvass should be redefined as an essay, an advice to follow, rather than an official guideline to punish people for posting messages. This harms collaboration. We must encourage all types of communication in the project, not discourage them. I know, this is a highly unpopular idea, but you do not want to control and censor communications in collaborative projects. My very best wishes (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh no, censorship! God, it's just everywhere! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• While I'm involved in this article already and thus already know what edits GregJackP is trying to solicit with this posting, I still don't see how, looking with an eye that attempts to be objective, it isn't canvassing. ARS, per its mission statement, aims to acknowledge and address deletion rationales, but GregJackP's statement asks ARS contributors to deny that delete !voters have valid points (as well as to support his position in the RFC). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Where did I ask anyone to "deny" anything? Or to support my position? I asked for help on saving an article that deserves to be here, and for "input." I know those guys well enough that if they don't agree, they'll say so (usually because I'm on the delete side of the argument). GregJackP Boomer! 03:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

GregJackP overstepped the bounds of neutral article alerts in trying to get the ARS regulars to accept his viewpoint of the article before they even saw it. Thus his notice was canvassing. Binksternet (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• This isn't the first issue of canvassing of the board by GregJackP [33]. If you post on ARS when there is an AfD in progress, you can almost guarantee a flow of uninformed inclusionists will vote. A great example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lagrangian-Eulerian Advection: " Keep This guy created a lot of notable math/science things. Many scholars do cite this." IRWolfie- (talk) 10:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• What does Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lagrangian-Eulerian Advection have to do with me? Never saw it or posted about it. Look, I understand that, just like you did in the Baggett case, want to just jump up and down and say "canvassing" - except that the article was improved dramatically since it went to ARS. It now has 16 sources, thanks to myself and 3 editors from ARS that added material to the article. Look at the edit history at the article. GregJackP Boomer! 11:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The advection and many other AFDs shows that there are editors who will go to AfDs and can be almost guaranteed to vote keep if you add a topic to the list at ARS, even if it involves them making arguments that they know to be false or which are plainly silly. You didn't add the notification that it had been listed at ARS either. A number of squadron members appeared at the AfD following the canvass, including Dream Focus and Warden came and voted keep. ARS contains a smaller core who advocate keeping articles at all costs and who fear the mythical editors who want to delete everything [34][35], even hypothesing secret cabals: "Originally the people were able to band together and drive away those that would seek to bring only destruction and misery. Then one day an organized cabal of deletionists did appear, and begin writing up guidelines, to give them excuse to eliminate things they didn't like." It's clear from your wording here that you are canvassing for keep votes: Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Rescue_list#Censorship_in_Islamic_societies IRWolfie- (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• This was indeed clearly canvassing. A recurring problem at the ARS list, e.g. "notices" like "Bristol Hotel, Gibraltar. Articles about Gibraltar are currently in the firing line and this is the first that I've come across. I pounced on it immediately following the similar case of Hotel Bristol which was recently Kept at AFD. Warden (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)" (Emphasis in original). Bolding "kept", and claiming that an AFD on an article about the general issue of hotels being named Bristol throughout the world is similar or relevant to an article about one specific such hotel? Yeah, totally neutral. Notices like this one start off with some minor editing advice, and then go on to issue an AfD advice. Fram (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• So? AfD are listed a number of places, such as WP:MILHIST - is that canvassing too? I watch the ARS - and a lot of time will go to the article, look at it, and !vote delete. GregJackP Boomer! 11:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Vitale as an example. GregJackP Boomer! 12:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• It's a common misunderstanding that canvassing must have the desired effect to be actualy considered "canvassing". And I said a recurring problem, not that every single post (or perhaps even a majority of them) at that list are canvassers, or that all people using it are consistently voting keep. Providing evidence of ARS list notices that were neutral, or ARS members agreeing to delete an article at AfD, don't negate that some notices (like the one under discussion, or the other examples given) may be intended to canvass. Fram (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

GregJackP misrepresenting sources?

See these examples by Binksternet. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Not true, see my response here. GregJackP Boomer! 20:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

"It is extremely clear from the context of the article", i.e you are inferring it and doing original research. For example, you are saying that "limitations on the freedom of speech" is censorship. I don't think limits on free speech are necessarily censorship; for example stopping speech which involves defamation or libel issues would not be censorship. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Not according to the policy, which states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." Each of the sources independently state the exact material cited.

"demonstrated the censorship effect of Islamic blasphemy laws with the arrest, trial, conviction, and imprisonment of British schoolteacher Gillian Gibbons in Sudan." was cited by Graham, L. Bennett (2009). "Defamation of Religions: The End of Pluralism?". Emory International Law Review (Emory University) 23: 69. The source text stated:

1. "Language amounting to hate speech or incitement to violence is considered dangerous to the wellbeing of society and is therefore restricted. But there is a very high threshold for what amounts to censorable speech." and then started giving a series of examples.
2. Example 3 was Gibbons, stating: "She complied with the wish of her students to name the bear Muhammad only to find herself behind bars for defaming the Prophet Muhammad."

This is out of one source, not multiple sources like stated in the WP:SYNTH policy.

The second source likewise was cited to support the exact material cited.

"She was arrested by 'men with big beards ... saying they wanted to kill her'" was cited by Belknap, Allison G. (2010). "Defamation of Religions: A Vague and Overbroad Theory that Threatens Basic Human Rights". Brigham Young University Law Review (Brigham Young University) 2010: 635. which stated: "British School teacher, Gillian Gibbons, was arrested by "men with big beards … saying they wanted to kill her" and imprisoned..."

"Only the intervention of the British government prevented harsher punishment." cited by both, with Belknap stating: "Within a month, she had been sentenced to prison but granted a presidential pardon, largely due to the intervention of two British Muslim parliamentarians." and Graham stating: "It was only after the British government intervened that Gibbons was freed and deported from Sudan."

Unless you can show that I took material from more than one source and merged it together, it is neither SYNTH nor OR. Each source independently supports the statements that they are cited for, again, clearly, from the articles. Try reading the actual policy. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 21:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

If you think Synthesis is the limit of original research you are mistaken. You are taking material, and linking it to an article based on your own pre-conceived notions rather than anything very explicit in the text to link it. That is the definition of original research. It should say something along the lines of "There are many examples of censorship in islamic countries. One example of censorship is ..." but it doesn't. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• No, this not OR, not WP:SYN and not misrepresentation of sources, as I tried to explain here. My very best wishes (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Some people have trouble with basic logic, I fear. All X are Y does not imply that all Y are X. In this particular case, censorship is a limit on freedom of expression, but not all ways to limit the freedom of expression are imposed through censorship. Our article on censorship doesn't say that killing someone for what they said is censorship; the words "kill" or "murder" don't even appear in that article. If a source says that some act (like a murder) was done with the intent to curtail/violate the freedom of expression, it doesn't follow that we can call it censorship at the drop of a hat. To do so is extremely silly, devaluing the more gruesome ways in which human rights can be violated (including freedom of expression), and is simply WP:OR as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

And where exactly did I link "kill" or "murder" to anything? As I noted below, you need to point to something specific in the policy that I allegedly violated. Someone pointed to SYNTH, it was clearly not SYNTH, anymore that shark attacks in the Red Sea are SYNTH. GregJackP Boomer! 11:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Your whole response is original research on your part. You are justifying inclusion of material by doing research to link it to the topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

You're making a conclusory statement without supporting it with policy. Exactly what part of the policy are you claiming I violated? The only specific area that anyone pointed out was SYNTH, which I addressed above, and which was just as clearly not violated. I can make all sort of conclusory statements, but without both evidence to support it and a specific part of the policy that was allegedly violated, it means nothing. Point me to exactly what part of the policy you believe I violated, and I'll address it. I've also noted that the original comment, that I misrepresented the source, seems to have gone away, perhaps due to the fact the sources support the material they were cited to. GregJackP Boomer! 11:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I said original research, SYNTH is just a paragraph of that. Read the lead of WP:NOR: To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. If you can't show by the source alone that it's relevant without looking at other sources, you are engaging in original research. IRWolfie- (talk)

"If you can't show by the source alone that it's relevant without looking at other sources, you are engaging in original research." Shakes head. What do you think I just outlined above? One source, Graham, supports what I put in the article. Both for the exact comments and censorship. One source. The other source provided a quote and backed up (i.e. was a second reference) another statement. What part of this are you having problems with? I could have supported the paragraph in the article with Graham alone. That's not original research. GregJackP Boomer! 21:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Is this going anywhere?

As enjoyable as all of this has been, is this going anywhere? It seems to me to be a content and sources issue now, neither of which belong on this board. I've only seen a few admins comment (during the first half), and I've taken all of their comments to heart. If this is nothing other than spurious allegations and a gripe session, might I suggest that it is time to close this? GregJackP Boomer! 11:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it's time to archive before he posts another similar complaint about another editor here [36]. My very best wishes (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Andy has identified an issue with ARS with canvassing by Greg and others, an issue a number of other editors have also noticed, and for some reason you wish to archive it rather than look at it? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I looked at this already and do not see any reasons for sanctions. I hold a general view about such requests that they should never be posted on ANI. I think WP:Canvass should be redefined as an essay, an advice to follow, rather than an official guideline to punish people for posting such messages. We must encourage all types of communication in the project, not discourage them. These messages get more people involved in improvement of articles and commenting about them. The more the better. As about AfDs and RfC, they suppose to be closed by a closing administrator based on merit of the argument, not based on the head count. So I do not see any problem. My very best wishes (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

So your argument that the thread should be closed wasn't based on what the guideline says, but on what you think it should say? Fine - then argue for it to be changed somewhere else - but meanwhile the guideline stays, and your opinion is irrelevant here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• No. His original statement was not neutral only in the sense that he wants the article be improved and saved (rather than advocating any specific position on the RfC). This is something expected by default at the article rescue noticeboard, not canvassing My very best wishes (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

"there is content dispute based on an overly narrow definition of censorship". If he argues that it is 'overly narrow' he is canvassing for that position, end of story. And he has no business whatsoever canvassing for an RfC at an unrelated noticeboard. Frankly, I can see no legitimate purpose in even mentioning the RfC, and am thinking about proposing a fixed format for ARS noticeboard postings to prevent such misuse. If the noticeboard is to serve its legitimate purpose, all that is needed is for the article name to be listed, together with a simple neutral request for those interested to consider whether they can improve the article, if they consider it is a suitable topic for Wikipedia. There is no need to go into details at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but that statement is contrary to common practices, and I fundamentally disagree. You want this discussion closed because, even though you agree it is canvassing, you think canvassing should be encouraged. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is the essence of your argument : "If you post on ARS when there is an AfD in progress, you can almost guarantee a flow of uninformed inclusionists will vote". Yes, this might be frequently the case. But the bulk of ARS postings happens during AfD discussions. So, we basically have two choices: (a) to close ARS down, and (b) to allow people post to ARS during AfD discussions. Solution (a) was discussed some time ago on ANI and received no support/consensus. So, practically speaking, we can only follow (b). If not, one should post a big banner on the ARS: telling Posting articles on ARS during AfD discussions is prohibited (if we had WP:Consensus that such postings are indeed prohibited). But until we have the banner on the ARS, such ANI requests and discussions will look very much like block-shopping. My very best wishes (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

How many times to you have to be told this?' It wasn't posting at the ARS noticeboard that was canvassing, it was advocating a position at the RfC. The ARS noticeboard isn't a remotely appropriate place to be doing such a thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in the diff above GregJackP said: "There is currently an RfC, so input on that would also be helpful in getting this article saved." Of course the overall purpose of posting anything on ARS is to save an article. So what? He did not suggest anything specific to tell on the RfC, and if you look at the actual RFC [37], I do not see anything terribly wrong there. And that's why you started this whole ANI tread? My very best wishes (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit is still bullshit, no matter how many times you repeat it. A statement that something is an "overly narrow definition" isn't neutral. Troll elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

More on Sharyl Attkisson

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article on Sharyl Attkisson has been a recurrent item on ANI. I stumbled upon it here a few weeks ago in the last time it was brought here regarding more legal threats by someone from the subject's employer, CBS News.

Numerous blocks have been issued to the ip-hopping editor(s) after numerous legal threats have been made and my most recent attempt to inform the editor of how to resolve issues like this was met with news of the impending expose story on Wikipedia. Given the circumstances, I'd like additional eyes on this, please. Toddst1 (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the complaint is legitimate to the extent that the article's sourcing should be improved. There does seem to be a reliance on blogs for criticism of her reporting on vaccine safety. There are reliable sources critical of Atkisson's reporting - for example, Paul Offit's book Deadly Choices describes Atkisson's links to the anti-vaccine movement and suggests that these links color her reporting. I don't have my copy of Autism's False Prophets handy, but it may be worth reviewing as well.

Mostly, though, we combat ignorance about vaccines by providing solid scientific information in our articles on vaccines, not by using blogs to slag the biographies of reporters viewed as anti-vaccine. I'm not personally willing to touch this article, because I'm allergic to litigious people (and there appears to be one on the talkpage) and because my personal view of the subject's scientific journalism is profoundly negative and would probably color my editing. So I'm just saying, is all. MastCell ^Talk 22:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure Offit can be considered impartial when it comes to Attkisson. They have a fair amount of history. Salzburg is actually a more credible source in this instance. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed Dr. Offit is not a wise sourcing choice since he already had to revise the aforementioned book once after a libel charge and paid a settlement, and was also the subject of a major retraction of false statements he made about Attkisson in the Orange County Register. Also, what is the justification for cherry picking one story from thousands of subjects and then including only disparaging opinion blogs as sources, which are unreliable sources under BLP, and also failing to balance that with the many reliable and positive cites on the same vaccine stories (including New England Journal of Medicine and other cites offered up by the subject) as well representing the greater body of work? Clearly the editors here have a specific one-sided agenda and it makes everyone look a bit silly to advance it in such an obvious, unfair fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.20.247.118 (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with you that we should not be citing blogs in the biography, least of all for disparaging comments. MastCell ^Talk 19:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a classic ignore all rules situation. We have several medical experts saying Attkisson filed reports that promote discredited claims about vaccines and autism. That they raised their objections in blogs does not change the fact that they can be taken as reliable sources for noting their position on her reporting given their experience with medicine, including one who is directly experienced with viral infections. Her bio is filled with positive commentary with just that one sentence noting criticism so it is not like this is an attack page or undue weight.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Legal threats continue

I'm going to step away from this article since the IP has concluded that I'm not neutral (having never edited the article). However, there are continued assertions of "libel" from CBS IPs [38] being posted to the talk page that probably should be dealt with. Toddst1 (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a pretty clear-cut case to me. a13ean (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I blocked two ranges: 170.20.11.0/27 and 170.20.240.0/20. Hopefully that'll put an end to it.--v/r - TP 18:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The rangeblock apparantly missed 170.20.247.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who is commenting in the section above. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

That was before the rangeblock.--v/r - TP 20:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DRN issue

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=514614430&oldid=514613948

i believe this is a fair and reliable conclusion based on the wiki guidelines. if you dont agree, ok. if you agree, then --

this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=514614655&oldid=514614524 is more of a very minor annoyance than anything and even though it is just a bother im still posting it anyhow because i feel it is harassing. please review my conclusion and make your neutral comments based on that.

Waveclaira (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

"in this case, it seemed really clear. maybe the opener had a misunderstanding, but i dont think the opener of this case should continue editing wikipedia." - very bad conclusion to a content dispute. The formatting is way off, and it doesn't seem like you understand how DRN works (arbitrators!?) Sure, Amadscientist may have been blunt, but it doesn't strike me as rude. Also, you need to notify Amadscientist per instructions at the top of the page. --Rschen7754 08:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

ok so you have a problem with SubSeven who said "If the arbitrator can figure out" -- you dont sound neutral at all

"you need to notify Amadscientist per instructions at the top of the page" -- already did that right after posting this, you dont seen to know what you're doing, especially considering this is the ANI, that's far worse.

"very bad conclusion to a content dispute" -- ok, the entire piece is the conclusion, and that part was what i thought a solution was -- you selectively picking is pretty meaningless. hopefully i can get some intelligent neutral comments, because right now, i really really hate you, mainly for your complete lack of responsibility in the problem i brought up about the person i felt was harassing me. if not, then ok. i'll just see that's how you people are. Waveclaira (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what harassment is; he would have to follow you around to unrelated topics in order for it to be harassment. Look, it seems that all you want is a "neutral" editor to back you up; please read WP:IDHT, because that's what this is starting to sound like. Good luck. --Rschen7754 09:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Saying "I really really hate you" is not a good way to get people to have empathy for your argument. I don't want to be picking up toys later. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Waveclaira, I've actually left you messages on your talk page and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources before seeing this. There is a very disturbing pattern, and an unusual one for a "new" user, enough to warrant a closer look as a majority of your edits seem very confrontational in tone, to say the least. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In relation to the DRN post you linked to;

• • Firstly, dismissing a report on WP:DRN as silliness is entirely the wrong way to help the editors resolve their issue. Your conclusion and close of the post was entirely inappropriate, since by closing it, you are assuming that your conclusion is correct and there is no need for the opinions of other DRN volunteers.
  • Secondly, Arbitrator has a very specific meaning on wikipedia and you are not an arbitrator, mediator perhaps but not Arbitrator, but this a relatively minor detail.
  • Thirdly, although you removed your statement, telling someone that they should not be editing Wikipedia is a flagrant assumption of bad faith.

More generally,

• • Please sign your posts appropriately
  • Please work on appropriate punctuation, responding to people with improper capitalisation and punctuation gives the impression that you are not taking their dispute seriously.
  • Read WP:HARASS as Amadscientist was most definitely not harassing you and their revert of your close was entirely appropriate. Harassment is the sustained following by one editor of another editor's edits, usually followed by regular reversions. I see you and Amadscientist butted heads a few times on [talk page] where, to be brutally honest, your attitude was basically combatative. You had some misunderstandings about how to go about making major edits in the way you did, were pointed in the direction of how to gain consensus for your edits but instead rebuffed Amadscientist and Johnathanfu's advice with your own interpretation of consensus.
  • In general, you might want to read up on more policy pages before continuing your editing, particularly WP:CONSENSUS, which seems to be one that you're having most trouble with. In total good faith, I assume you have been around the block as an IP or what not, but your contribs tell me that you've been delving in areas that most new editors would not approach. You've been here barely a month and yet you're doing FA reviews, GA nominations, DRN and making major changes to policy pages. That's not saying you can't edit in those areas but in general only very experienced editors or admins would do anything there and definitely by diving in head first. Blackmane (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I've spent about two hours looking into this, well I did get sidetracked repeatedly, but clearly you did not follow some basic required practices:

1. Before you make sweeping pronouncements investigate the matter, read all about it: edit history, relevant policy, talk about the policy and how it is applied, etc. This can take hours for an experienced user; for a new user such as you, considerably longer and will involved asking more questions than making pronouncements.
2. Be patient with other new, inexperienced, or uninformed editors. Don't dismiss people as "silly", or in any other derogatory way. Don't pronounce someone else as being unfit to edit. We, the community, do that, but only when experience shows that it is impossible for them to edit constructively.
3. Be bold after you're informed and prepared, not before.

So, looking at your edit history, it looks like you're trying real hard, but perhaps running the wrong way on this particular football field. Take a deep breath and start over, do a bit of editing, become more familiar with our policies and how they are applied in practice, and become a trusted productive editor. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Being bold after being informed and prepared isn't being bold. The key to being bold is to only make a particular edit once, and then immediately back down and start discussing. Nobody Ent 15:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, some mechanism to attract the attention of interested parties must be employed. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Kendrick7 - Faliure to abide by AfD v2

I'd like to continue the topic of this thread. It all stems from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitt Romney's tax returns. Basically, after the Afd was closed, Kendrick tried to add some of the content of the article to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, was reverted, and then recreated the deleted article. It was protected as a redirect, I gave him a final warning about edit warring, and he went on wikibreak. He returned a couple days ago to recreate the article at a slightly different name Tax returns of Mitt Romney, which I deleted as a G4 and warned him to stop again. (The edit history of the two tax return articles was deleted before the final re-protection.) He then returned to try to re-add the whole article to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, I reverted, and he is now edit warring to keep it there, and accusing me of vandalism. I think he should be blocked, preferably until after the election, to prevent further disruption. In order to avoid any appearance of involved administrative action, I'll ask for someone else to block him. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've reverted Kendrick once already, so I can't do it, but I support the block. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• These people are just vandals, who do not respect WP:ENC. Our fundamental purpose as an encyclopedia is to inform our readers and let them be the judge of what information we put in our readers hands. Vandals disagree with that and only want to promote ignorance. How very clever that they have shown up here to support each other! -- Kendrick7^talk 03:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Kendrick should read WP:VANDALISM. Content disputes are not vandalism. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• He's been blocked thanks to TParis. I was just about to take him to 3RRNB and hadn't seen this thread yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

...And per WP:ENC: "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT AN ANARCHY". When we make a decision, we expect people to stick by it, or argue against it in the proper manner, not ignore it. (And before you ask, I wasn't involved in the decision, and were I to express my personal opinion of Mitt Romney, or his politics, I'd probably be in trouble once again for use of profanities on Wikipedia... ) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, plenty of articles are deleted and then re-created via the proper channel. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

This article falls under general sanctions. TParis is watching some of these.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, he's broken 3rr and edit warred to add vandalism warning templates to other editors... could someone block him now? Mark Arsten (talk) 04:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Also WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT about content disputes not being vandalism. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• And TParis has blocked him, looks like the problem is solved. Thanks! Mark Arsten (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Yes, blocked. I skipped the procedural step of warning the user about the article probation. If some other administrator feels this isn't an appropriate application of WP:IAR, they are welcome to accept the unblock request but I strongly suggest a topic ban.--v/r - TP 04:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little confused here. Creating a new article to replace a deleted one is obviously problematic, but an AfD does not declare that the content can't be added to another article, only that it doesn't warrant a separate article. So why were you edit-warring on this? —Kerfuffler  scratch
sniff  04:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• It doesn't preclude a merge, but discussion should take place. That content needed to be trimmed drastically before going into the main article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• Yeah, if you check the archives, he had tried to add this to the main article in the past but couldn't get consensus. At that point it's disruptive to continually re-add it. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• He's up to his third unblock request with largely the same exact text. Anyone want to do the honors? --Jayron32 04:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the content dispute, dumping the whole lot in (presumably - I can't see the deleted article) with an edit summary of "restore content per WP:PRESERVE" and then describing subsequent deletions as "vandalism" isn't remotely in accord with WP:BRD. And unless I'm mistaken, a proper merge would involve the edit history of the material too, for copyright reasons. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Just an FYI, I believe a merge of history requires an admin function. A proper merge would at least need to attribute the originating article in the edit summary with a direct link: "Content added/merged from Originating article". If this is not done a dummy edit can fulfill this requirement or just adding {{Copied}} to the talkpage of the article that had content merged "into" and then filling out the fields. Merging of content does not require discussion and can be boldly done...but then it can also be reverted and discussion begun if there is objection, which is why a proposal is suggested for more controversial articles.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Although...if the article being "merged" was already deleted it can't be attributed in the manners mentioned as the history is gone as well so it would need the history merged in this case, but needs an admin to do it. At any rate this seems to be the final end to this situation I hope. I remember when that article was recreated...made my head explode.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

(Completely unrelated to the merits of this matter) It's probably not a good idea to history merge in such a case since that makes a real mess in tracking attribution (try wikiblame when content keeps radically changing; ouch). If content is merged from a deleted article and there is some reason that the page can't be restored and kept as a redirect, it can be moved to talk space and referenced that way. For instance, if you want to merge "Fie" to "Fee", you can move Fie to Talk:Fee/Fie (has to be talk subspace to avoid it being stumbled upon by "random page"). Then your edit summary for the merge can link to Talk:Fee/Fie. There's no rule that says that the content must stay in mainspace. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Really? Thanks for the info. I don't think we are aware of this at WP:WPMERGE.

• TPA revoked. (At the same time with another admin, too.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should reconsider the definition of "vandalism" to what it actually means: Any edit in which another user disagrees with. --MuZemike 07:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism is a social construction. Try adding something serious to Encyclopedia Dramatica. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a current definition. Nobody Ent 17:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Possibility of a Topic Ban?

Ok. A long term, prolific editor has now been indefinitely blocked. I do not at all dispute the need for what happened, but would like to put out feelers for an alternative solution that has a better likelihood of keeping this editor than the current state of affairs.

So, while not quite yet officially proposing a topic ban, I would like to see opinions on whether people think one would be appropriate here. As part of enacting a ban, the block length would be reduced. *Some* time should be served, but I'm thinking less than the original 3 months.

As for the topic ban itself, I'm thinking either just the topic of Romney, or the 2012 election, or US politics overall.

Anyway, does anyone else think that this is worth trying, or is this a lost cause? - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

After a lot of problems in his earlier career, he did seem to have calmed down/got the policies - until Mitt Romney came along. I'm reasonably sure if he offered to stay away from articles about the gentleman, he could come back, but he needs to get back into the 'wikipedia Editor, knows the rules' frame of mind, and out of the 'crusader for the truth, rules are the devil's invention' frame of mind inspired by Mr Romney. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with Elen on this. If the user is inspired to ignore behavioral rules regarding a certain topic, but not with others, I see no problem with allowing them back so long as they never touch that topic. If Kendrick is capable of working within Wikipedia's behavioral standards in most areas of Wikipedia excepting American politics, I would be fine with him doing so. Since it seems American politics is the area which inspires him to go off the deep end, just let him edit articles about particle physics or pokemon or heraldry or whatever the heck else doesn't turn him into a Campaigner for The Truth. --Jayron32 17:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me...offer the topic ban as a condition of the unblock. I'd hate to lose a long term editor like that for something as stupid as politics. It probably wouldn't hurt to wait a day or so for things to cool off, though. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I support the offer of a topic ban as one term of unblock...but the editor really does need to create a proper unblock request as three improper requests were made that wasted the time of others starting out as: (1)"this is plainly ridiculous", (2)"This is a joke" and (3)"That is all nonsense" [39]. There really does need to be a show of good faith before unblock, but I do support the rescue of this editor if it can be done.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban sounds fine by me. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Works for me, too. Ironholds (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• This is just one of those "it had to happen" kinda things; using the project to further personal political beliefs needs to be squashed and squashed hard. Tarc (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• A topic ban seems like a minimum requirement for unblock, but seeing as, in his last unblock request, he said "I will revert vandalism until my dying breath" (where "vandalism" apparently means anything he disagrees with) then we need to see a major change of attitude too - a topic ban won't work while he's in that kind of mood. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'd like to suggest that a topic ban would remove any motivation for him to return. The concern is edit-warring, so restricting him to 1RR within the topic would be sufficient. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
• I will revert vandalism until my dying breath. is a pretty dramatic statement. Either that needs clarification and withdrawing, as well as a primer on what is and isn't "vandalism", or waiting until that last breath before returning. It is pretty hard to see eye to eye with someone who is standing on a soap box, after all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 06:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
• I'd support a full topic ban, broadly construed, but he should remain blocked for, say, 2 weeks? 1 month? to allow him to calm down and re-consider his behaviour and attitude. GiantSnowman 09:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
• My position would be that a topic ban might be appropriate...but not a change in block, rather leaving at indef until he can provide assurances that he won't let his anti-collaborative attitude spread elsewhere, and only then unblocking w/topic ban. This is, I believe, not his first time in the paddywagon for similar issues, after all. Or, instead of a topic ban, ISS's suggestion [40] would work. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
• I'd support an early unblock, but preferably after the elections. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
• The only condition under which I'd consider an unblock is in conjunction with a topic ban, broadly construed, on US politics. If he agreed to such a topic ban, I'd support an immediate unblock.This is not the first time that he has run afoul of policies, guidelines, and simple common sense on political topics, and his tendentious unblock requests indicate that he simply does not get the concept of consensus, which is a prerequisite for collaborative editing. In response to User:StillStanding-247, if a topic ban removes any motivation for him to return, then he is another agenda-driven individual who doesn't have any place here. There are a fair number of editors listed at WP:RESTRICT who manage to productively edit outside of areas in which they have been topic-banned; most of those who can't are not a net loss to Wikipedia. I'd like to see Kendrick7 join the ranks of those who can edit Wikipedia in areas in which they are not disruptive. Horologium (talk) 01:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Personal threat by 24.32.196.211

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, after issuing a warning to this IP editor, the text was replaced with this personal attack/threat: [41] This user's activity has been documented in full at User:Drmies/Roman Catholic?. Elizium23 (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked 2 weeks.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted the ip's edit as degrading and grossly offensive. Administrators may continue to view it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Charming. The brother signs his expletives with a chi rho. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Category bombing by ‎Hmains

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I and several other editors have extensively edited articles for New Jersey high schools, subcategorizing all high schools into separate categories for public and private high schools for each of the 21 counties in the state. Each of the 21 subcategories for public high schools, such as Category:Public high schools in Morris County, New Jersey, have Category:Public high schools in New Jersey as a parent. User:Hmains has repeatedly attempted to add Category:Public high schools in New Jersey to articles that have already been sub-categorized, edits that are both needless and in violation of WP:CAT. After having this issue explained numerous times on his talk page (see here in September and here in July among many others), Hmains has repeatedly refused to address the issues raised and has gone to category bomb the hundreds of articles in question. After the needlessly added categories were removed and after discussing this again on his talk page, Hmains stated that he would find consensus elsewhere (as none exists to support his point) and is on another category bombing run as I write. This abuse of editing to pump up his edit count for no reason and to impose his point of view should result in his AWB privileges being removed, at a minimum, to prevent further such abuses of process. Alansohn (talk) 03:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Interested parties can read the discussion and will see the misunderstandings written above. Since this is a content dispute, I opened a content discusison at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools Thanks Hmains (talk) 03:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Sadly, Hmains seems to be seeking a fig leaf for his abuse of AWB, needlessly editing several hundred articles and edit warring over the existence of a category that is already in the article. This had been explained to Hmains several times in the past few months, only to be ignored each time. After a rather clear explanation of why these categories were not needed, Hmains proceeded to abuse AWB again to add the same needless categories to hundreds upon hundreds of articles. There are several editors working on expanding articles and refining categorization for all high schools in New Jersey. All such articles have already been placed into a county-level category with Category:Public high schools in New Jersey as a parent, but Hmains has persistently refused to acknowledge that this category structure has already addressed the issue he seeks to solve by lumping 350-400 articles in a category that has already been painstaking subcategorized. His WP:OWN issues with imposing his category structure on every article for every public high school in the 3,113 counties in the United States seems to be at the heart of the problem. Alansohn (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • After opening up Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools#Schools_categorization, consensus seems rather clear that there is no need to add these diffused categories back into the parent. Yet Hmains has resumed adding to the hundreds of categories he needlessly added in his edit war after they were removed, after this ANI was started and after the issue he opened at WP:SCHOOLS has rather clear consensus in conflict with his actions. Immediate action is needed here. Alansohn (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm asking Hmains to clarify. In the meantime, let's dial down the rhetoric, please. - jc37 04:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think I have a decent idea about this now.

Hmains was working on categories related to schools by state.

When he got to New Jersey, unlike the others, New jersey has some schools further diffused (subcatted) "by county".

But following the same pattern he had been following on the other 49 states, Hmains placed the schools in the parent cat (which would appear "un-diffused" to an observer).

After that, there was "interaction" through edit warring, then by confrontation on Hmains's talk page. Hmains attempted to get a WP:3PO by starting a discussion at the related WikiProject (discussion ongoing there).

This just appears to be a misunderstanding. Nothing here for AN/I to do at this point. I've already spoken with Hmains. And I'll merely remind alansohn that positive constructive posts may lead to better understanding than adversarial ones. The phrase to keep in mind would be "request for clarification". (And opening the AN/EW right after opening the thread here could be seen as borderline Forum shopping.)

I think that, unless something new arises, this thread can be closed at this point. - jc37 06:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism-only account - User:CaRl CoSmOs

Deleted, creator warned, AfD closed. --John (talk) 05:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A new account, User:CaRl CoSmOs, was created earlier today and immediately created the obvious hoax article Durka Durkastan. The account's only edits since have been to 3RR remove AfD and hoax tags. "Durka Durkastan" is a fictional country mentioned in the movie Team America: World Police. The article, however, is presented as if the country is a real place with a non-fiction history. For reference, the AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durka Durkastan. The speedy tag {{db-hoax}} was not used - I suppose someone could argue that the fictional place (having appeared in the movie) might justify an article. But as a claim the country actually exists, the article is a hoax and User:CaRl CoSmOs is clearly here to be disruptive. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 04:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I need admin assistance please

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Who is awake that may help?--Amadscientist (talk) 08:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

So, what terrible ordeal lies ahead of us, poor European time-zone dwellers? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I be in California. Give me just a sec.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

A lot of people - is there some reason you can't just post what you want? WilyD 08:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I asked for a sec to get it all together:

This IP began editing shortley after user:Waveclaira was blocked yesterday[42] for DR/N disruption and has just filed a DR/N [43] over a talkpage dispute they intitiated by adding a template on a BLP subject. The DR/N filing was malformed and as I was fixing it I noticed the the timestamp on the first edit. But another oddity is that they have somehow (I don't know the intricacies off hand) began a userpage [44] that is not a registered account. Yet, they filed the DR/N under the IP and listed themselves as Col Mumtaz Khan. They have requested help from an admin: User:Seraphimblade who has yet to reply. The talkpage shows they were or are at least representing themselves as another IP: [45] which first posted on the talkpage there on 20:48, 26 September 2012. Here is the talpage discussion:[46]. This may seem or even be nothing....but there are too many oddities for me not to bring this up now immediately.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm seeing the link between the Waveclaira (talk · contribs) account and the 39.54.* IPs. Is there a similarity of editing patterns, beyond the temporal coincidence? Apart from that, the only thing I'm seeing is an anon editor with a good-faith concern (justified or not) about self-promotional editing, who has not yet figured out some of the technicalities. Am I missing something? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The link is the DR/N filing and seeming to "misunderstand" policy and or guidelines in a similar manner. I make no accusation but perhaps this is not something I should be bringing up here. It was suggested to me by User:Dennis Brown to be sure and request admin help when these situations appear immediatly, but this may not be the proper venue. I am simply giving a heads up to a situation I see as being far to similar and follows a pattern of another SP. I do aplogise if I have used the wrong place to bring this up. Thank you and Happy editing. At least I attempted. If there is nothing then there is no harm no foul.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

That's my assessment too. If you think it's a problematic socking, maybe try Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, but I don't see anything obvious. WilyD 08:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Waveclaira never edited in the rather discrete area of interest the ip has edited and commented on. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just blocked an IP for repeated antisemitic edits; but since the most recent attacks were in part on me, taking it here for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:2.121.227.96 has a consistent history of obsession with Jews and Judaism, along with the more unsavory versions of neo-Paganism and related racial issues. The IP uses all the code words: "cosmopolitan" vs. "folkish"; "certain Ashkenazi Jews"; "far-left/Marxist"; changing "Jewish" to "ancient Israelite"; etc. He has now twice posted a screed at Talk: American Third Position Party implying that criticisms of that party are the fault of Jews and their supporters ("philosemites"). I have blocked him, but want other eyes on this to make sure that I have not over-reacted to this particular flavor of hate, since I'm one of the "philosemitic far-left cranks" he attacked (the other was User:Baseball Bugs, and "Baseball Bugs appears to be Jewish"). --Orange Mike | Talk 13:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Block is perfectly fine and appropriate. Volunteer Marek  13:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks perfectly fine to me. And since he decided to throw some religious hate in your direction before being blocked, bringing it here was a good idea so there is no confusion as to your reasons, which are well founded. The hateful POV spewing from this IP makes the case pretty simple. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yep, block looks fine to me too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) A lengthy block is certainly appropriate, but indefinite? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I think a good point is raised—I would agree that indefinite block is not called for. Bus stop (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

If it was a reg'ed user, there would be no question that indef was appropriate. Since it is a static IP, one year (the longest I've ever "indef'ed" an IP) might be better, but if the same person started editing afterwards with any kind of edit good or bad, I would reup the block. The idea is that the editor should be gone for indef, even if we decide to block the IP for less due to technical considerations. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, I hadn't noticed it was indef - it should probably be reduced to 1 year. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Good block. There is no magic time after which an anti-semitic racist suddenly reforms and will become a productive editor. If it happens (fat chance, but one never knows), it happens after an indefinite time, nicely matching the block. For technical reasons it should be changed to one year. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

...and so done. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continuous Vandalism

There's a continuous vandalism at the page Nanorobotics by different IPs, but from the same location, which I've found to be Madison Metropolitan School District, WI, US. Here are the diffs:

[47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53]

The Net Range I found to be 199.197.64.0 - 199.197.127.255

Here's a reference: [54]

I will now notify only the 199.197.127.110 IP and tag with the ANI notice on that IP as well.

I will also revert the changes.

Charon77 (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

You can request page protection here. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 14:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Thanks for responding. The vandalism has stopped, for now. But I'm more concern on the IPs, rather than the page. Charon77 (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

If it continues passed that one article, WP:AIV and request a range block. If it is only one or two articles, protection is the preferred method, which prevents other people on those IPs from getting blocked except as a last resort. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

A friendly word

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could an admin have a friendly word with User:Zrdragon12 and User:Philip Cross please ? They appear to be having some interaction problems resulting in edit warring across multiple articles (see editor interaction report). I don't know the background but this caught my attention because the latest article is Jonathan Cook, a BLP covered by WP:1RR and discretionary sanctions. The editors are probably not aware of the ARBPIA restrictions. It's not a great place to have a personal dispute. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you can have a look into User:Philip Cross Harassing me as well.[55] .There has been more since then posted to my talk page. Anyway I did not see that the Johnathan Cook article was 1RR but yes we do have a problem and Mr Cook started it with Harassing me over edits I made to the Oliver Kamm page,he has then gone on from that as described in my link to harass me on not just my talk page but another 3 peoples talk pages,accusing me of being some else and a sock puppet. Frankly it is getting a little boring now and not very civil.Zrdragon12 (talk) 11:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

As the name of the person (and the account holder's spouse) who I believe is behind the Zrdragon12 account have now been removed from my talk page, it is now impossible to discuss this issue in public. I have tried to find an email contact address where I can answer the issue of the Zrdragon12 account confidentially, but without success. Please could an administrator email me. This is easily achieved, contact by other users through email is activated.

On the Jonathan Cook article. A genuine mistake, but I was not aware when working on the article that the 1RR on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute applied to this article. (He is a British journalist, not someone originally from the region.) A foolish error perhaps, but in the heat of the moment, dealing with the behaviour of the other editor, I must have missed or overlooked the banner. Please could someone contact me via email. Philip Cross (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

A large number of edits Outing one of these editors have been suppressed so much of the editing history is unavailable. User:Philip Cross has been advised to pursue conflict of interest issues confidentially, or, at least, without allusion to possible personal identity. I think there may be a serious dispute about point of view editing, but I have not investigated it at this point. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, fair enough.

The other editor's references to me being “paranoid” and posting “ravings” and being someone who has escaped from a mental hospital using ‘Philip Cross‘ as a pseudonym were not very helpful in helping me to perceive where I was diverging from Wikipedia policies. I hope these comments are still accessible when any penalties on either of us are decided. The other editor has clearly been uncivil, and broken the good faith rule, though obviously so have I. The other editor’s comments about myself though, bearing in mind WP policies, will doubtless be reacted too in due course. From my perspective, such observations about myself could remain, but this is out of my control. Philip Cross (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The comments are inappropriate and certainly a violation of civility; however, in my opinion, as the user is not a mental health professional, not suppressible as libel, although they might be deletable as grossly degrading, offensive, and insulting material. I have not done so, although any administrator, if they feel it is justified, is free to do so. To me, they just mean "he is bad." rather than being a serious aspersion regarding mental health. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Is Philip clear on where he can pursue his concerns confidentially ? Is it functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org ? Sean.hoyland - talk 19:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I have replied to Fred Bauder. Sorry to have to put you through more of this. Philip Cross (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to say a thank you to User:Fred Bauder for deleting all of User:Philip Cross harassing posts directed at me,maybe at last he will stop bothering me with his fantasy version of reality. If Mr Cross had not started this campaign against me in the first place then we would not be here I feel and as an editor of wikipedia for many years surely he should know the rules and know that it was wrong in the first place.Anyway I hope we can all move forward now.Zrdragon12 (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problems with original research:User:Jimbo Wales

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

consensus is this isn't appropriate for this venue. Continue civil discussion over the matter in other venues. No one is going to use an admin tool over what has happened so far.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
After this and this edit, User:Silver seren complained about them being original research. After a long discussion... I posted this. I hoped Jimbo would see his mistake...but this was a "no"... A no to Wikipedia:No original research...Something should be done.--Müdigkeit (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC) And what, you want us to block Jimbo? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC) (e/c) Posting this to ANI is just about the least productive thing you could have done. No admin action is ever going to happen, and that's what ANI is for. There's ongoing discussion on the article talk pages and on Jimbo's talk page, and there's WP:VPP and/or WT:OR if you really feel yet another new thread on yet another page must be started. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC) ??Is this a serious AN/I filing against Jimbo Wales for original research? I would have thought it was COI editing...and there is no real policy against it, only if it is a problematic edit.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC) Support Justice must be brought to Jimbo. :D </humor>—cyberpower ChatOffline(Now using HTML5) 14:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC) Why should Jimbo be treated differently to any other editor? GiantSnowman 14:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC) True...why should he be immune from editors that don't understand policy. Exactly how is this OR?--Amadscientist (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC) (e/c) Is this intended as a reason to close the thread, or keep it open? I don't think we would routinely bring any editor to ANI for making two posts that some consider OR and others don't, when discussion is ongoing on the article talk page and the user talk page. If we're going to treat Jimbo as any other editor, this thread should be hatted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict)Even ignoring who this thread is about, this doesn't belong here yet (even though the edits go against WP:CITE and WP:V). When this editor crosses into WP:TE or WP:3RR territory, then something can be done. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC) There is absolutely no need for admin action here. Even if this wasn't Jimbo, I can't see anyone getting blocked, protected, or deleted over this. This is a content dispute, users are hammering this out in civil discussion. We have no need to stop anything. I'm hatting this. --Jayron32 14:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC) Agree fully that bringing to ANI is ridiculous, but also feel that people defending Jimbo's edits (that go against policy) just because he's Jimbo is equally ridiculous. GiantSnowman 14:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: Preceding section hatted by Jayron32. Nobody Ent 15:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: Preceding hatting was already unambiguously claimed to have been hatted by Jayron32 when he stated, and I quote "I'm hatting this." in the text, and signed his name following that sentence with four tildes. What that usually means is that he was hatting the discussion. --Jayron32 15:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Delete or even redact old legal threat?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

[[64]] is thoroughly stale, but should it be deleted or even redacted to avoid deterring anyone that takes it seriously? NebY (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I would hat it. A 3-year-old comment doesn't necessarily deserve any blocks at this point, but the comment needs to be removed or hatted so as to not have a chilling effect on the proper development of the article. --Jayron32 17:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done Removed. Nobody Ent 18:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Off wiki fringe group

I've noticed a fringe group at thunderbolts.info appear to be coordinating from their forums for topics around the fringe subject Plasma Cosmology, from creating articles [65] to discussing particular edits and reverts they have made [66]. Encouraging their own members to join a wikiproject dedicated to the topic: User:DJBarney24/WikiProject_Plasma_Cosmology: "However this is not a perfect process ... especially in contentious areas where editors get scared off. Hence the need for safety in numbers. Hence the Wiki Project." [67], and they also so they can coordinate in disputes [68]. They also discussing MfDs, editors etc: [69][70]. I'm not sure what to make of it, or what should be done. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I've left some notices. Note http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4862 is year old. It discusses deletion: 15:13, 17 April 2007 Edgar181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who deleted "James McCanney" ‎ (expired prod; deletion reasoning: Person is only notable for his Electric Universe thingie, which has been deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric universe (concept).) Old stuff indeed. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The proposed project is 4 months old, only one user has edited, no one else has signed on, the page is in user space. I propose no action in the absence of aggressive pursuit of inappropriate editing objectives. There seems to be no active current discussion on the 3rd party website of organized pov editing, just old complaints. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Some of it is older, but some of the links are from just yesterday [71][72][73]. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I see, newest posts at the bottom of the page, and apparently a bit of editing by one person from the forum, apparently Siggy G (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I think something to watch. Is there some basis for deleting the project? User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a six month old stale prototype in user space -- as long as editors are not disrupting the Wikipedia space action is premature. Nobody Ent 20:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It's being actively promoted now though, with the latest promotion of it from yesterday. I expect to see more random users appearing at Plasma Cosmology like this editor: Special:Contributions/80.233.133.75 (The editor even refers to "we") due to the off-wiki discussions they are having. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Editing of Scary Movie 5 by User:Jpmanoux

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, I reverted an edit recently of Scary Movie 5 by User:Jpmanoux for not providing verifiable sources for content added and changed. I didn't realize it at the time, but Jpmanoux may in fact be the actor J.P. Manoux who is currently playing a part in Scary Movie 5. While there's no concrete evidence the account is owned by the actor, I still recommended verifiable sources. It seems JP isn't familiar with Wikipedia, so I wanted to get a second opinion here to see how to handle this situation. Thanks. --GSK ● talk ● evidence 18:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I've temporarily blocked Jpmanoux (talk · contribs) pending positive confirmation that he is, in fact, J. P. Manoux. I have also left what I hope is a friendly note to that effect. The account is 6 years old, but not very active, so this may have never been caught before. If anyone knows that they HAVE already been confirmed by OTRS years ago, then feel free to undo my block and I'll eat crow on this. If that hasn't been done, it is important that it is, because we do want to make sure we protect poeple from impersonation. --Jayron32 18:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP adding dodgy-looking web link

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:75.60.7.64 has made just two edits, both being the replacement of a legitimate external link with a dubious-looking one: http://snip.ps/cGS. (Having foolishly clicked on it, and closed it immediately, I just hope it isn't seriously malicious.) No other edits, but clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia. Could they be stopped, now, before they do any more damage? PamD 21:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not really malicious...I clicked "Skip this add" on the one you posted and it took me to the website of the Yorkshire Philosophical Society, so really all it did was throw an ad in front of the website. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

... and someone got paid for you doing the clickthrough dangerouspanda 22:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not any more concerned about that than someone getting paid for having ads in YouTube videos I watch, but regardless, the changes were reverted and they haven't edited in an hour, so it's stale enough I don't see any reason to block. Perhaps adding that URL to the blacklist would do good though. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Blacklist updated. -Scottywong| chat _ 22:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki User:Steel abusing his privileges and reverting constructive edits for personal reasons

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Steel has been abusing his privileges on Wikipedia for the past couple of days, continuously reverting articles which I have edited for the betterment of their accuracy.

Let me give you an example. In the page called Sultanate of Rum, Steel has been constantly reverting my edits, which I have contributed constructively, on the basis that I am a sock of a blocked account. Now my question to Wiki admins is, do the people revert pages simply because of the person who did the editing or do they revert pages because of its content? What basis does User:Steel have in reverting pages back to their inaccurate forms? Just because he has something personal against the person editing the pages? Very childish.

Look at the two versions for instance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sultanate_of_Rum&oldid=514881441
^This was the version I made using a public IP. It stated that the Sultanate of Seljuk was indeed a Persianized Turkish sultanate, with the references to support the information.

Then User:Steel comes along and reverts the page to this version:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sultanate_of_Rum&oldid=514891728
Notice, in this version the word "Persianized" sultanate is removed, despite the fact the sources are reliable and the Seljuks and their states are historically documented for being Persianized, culturally and linguistically. Yet User:Steel simply reverts it on the basis of personal grudges, which means the article is back to its inaccurate form - a form which is a result of someone else vandalizing the page in order to remove the Persian aspect of the article due to his anti-Persian agenda. So basically, User:Steel is reverting the article to a biased version. Appalling.

Notice that my version of the article also contained Arabic and Greek in the list of languages, one of which were (the Arabic language) were discussed in the article's talk page, with their sources provided in the talk page and in another article, and which is why I added them. Again, User:Steel has no care for this at all and simply reverts the article to the less accurate, less factual, more Turkish nationalistically-inclined version.

Furthermore, Steel decides to follow me around in my other edits, not taking into account the slightest positive contribution I made. For instance, in the Ghaznavid dynasty page, I have made a change here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghaznavids&oldid=514878115
^Once again, the purpose of this edit was to provide historical accuracy to the article. The Ghaznavid dynasty was a Persianized dynasty of Turkic origin. Now as you can see in the talk page of that public IP, user Kansas Bear provided consensus to my changes with a minor request of rewording, which I complied to, and his approval of my changes should be taken with good weight due to his upstanding reputation in wikipedia. But once more, Steel comes along and reverts the article to a LESS accurate, LESS factual version, which is this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghaznavids&oldid=514891727
Why is it less accurate? Well, because if you look at the sources, they are not in line with the descriptions given in the intro of that article. The references talk about a Persianate statehood, the article talks about it from strictly a cultural sense. Kansas Bear, who initially made this change, even accepted the change I made which I intended as improvement on his version. Yet Steel doesn't bother with this and simply reverts it due to his personal grudges.

A third example is by far the funniest one of all...
I have edited the page of Khwarazmian dynasty to this version:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khwarazmian_dynasty&oldid=514887968
In this version I have written that the dynasty was Sunni Muslim, of Turkic origin and established a Persianate empire. This is an improvement of the previous version of the article, which is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khwarazmian_dynasty&oldid=512684729
In the old version, it says it was a Persianate dynasty. I moved the word Persianate because the term Persianate described the empire/state.

What I find truly ironic and unbelievable is that Steel basically reverted my changes to the previous version, of which I contributed as well with my Wiki account name.

That goes to show this guy doesn't know what the heck he's even doing. He doesn't appreciate the improvement to the articles I made, rather he just stalked every page I edited and reverted them on no basis or foundation.

Wikipedia should care about the accuracy of the article, not about who made the edits. If he wants to ban me as a punishment, let him do so. But he should not revert an article which I actually improved. The sad thing is my contributions made the articles more accurate, based on the sources given all of which are credible. Sadly they were reverted to less accurate versions because of a personal grudge User:Steel has.

This has to be an abuse of privileges. And it's detrimental to wikipedia. The foremost priority of wikipedia is accuracy and reliability of the article. Now if you want to punish a person due to your own grudges, do so, but not in the expense of weakening an article and reverting it to a worse version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.184.139.162 (talk • contribs)

• I signed this for you. Then I notified Steel for you. Then I blocked you for socking. User:Qatarihistorian Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extend the block on Qatarihistorian?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It looks like he has been incessantly socking ever since he was blocked. First as User:Wikiwayhek and now using several IPs: Special:Contributions/88.201.28.106 and as 46.184.139.162 (above). Tijfo098 (talk) 23:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see there was a SPI on him after he socked as User:Agulgilli and Wikiwayhek. His block was extended to two months on that occasion. But that didn't seem to deter him from socking as an IP. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Block extended from two months to indef, by me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Self-determination

It is clear that discussions about the Falkland Islands at Talk:Self-determination are spiralling out of control, despite the attempts of various parties to intervene. (See WP:RSN#Verification source citations is this WP:OR and WP:SYN and WP:DRN#Self-determination.) Heated discussion about sources and continued edit-warring are ongoing and I have now had to warn one of the editors involved for posting an uncivil message. For the record their reply is here. I fear this is heading for Arbitration unless things cool down and am requesting more eyes on this page. Ben MacDui 12:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

After looking at the edit-warring and signs of tendentiousness in the edits, I would suggest a block against at least Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs), who I believe has been the most stubborn and the most overtly tendentious of the lot; not quite sure yet about those on the other side. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree as a careful analysis of all of Gaba's contributions for the entire year seemed to be directed overwhelmingly at Wee's edits in the Falkland articles with Gaba being the aggressor in this case. Please see: [[74]]Mugginsx (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note the past conflict I've had with FPaS and from my knowledge this is the second occasion has proposed sanctions against me. My edits are sourced to reliable sources, giving due weight and the others aren't. I have addressed problems in the article, I've followed WP:DR steps and I've remained civil. I have very little faith in WP:ANI as too often I see posts like the above looking to settle old scores. Thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Any objection to Gaba p's edits is labelled by him as WP:OR and WP:SYN, as far as he's concerned that is sufficient for any discussion. In this case, insisting on using a source that made a demonstrably false claim. [75]

I point out that his edit is misleading, thats also WP:OR and WP:SYN. [76]

I point out an edit is contrary to WP:WEIGHT, thats also WP:OR and WP:SYN. [77]

I raised the matter in talk [78], I started the DRN [79], I started the RSN discussion [80]. On every occasion I have given a reasoned response to proposals, if Gaba p disagrees - its [[WP:OR], its WP:SYN, its a lie [81], its wikilawyering but he never actually discusses with an aim to reaching agreement. His approach is confrontational and antagonistic to anyone who disagrees [82],[83]. He has previously been warned about WP:CIVIL [84] and that he faced a block if he continued. Whilst its just been warnings from several admins but no action he has simply got bolder. User:Langus-TxT who in a RFC at Falkland Islands was warned for POV editing has previously backed up Gaba p in a WP:TAG team to try and force POV changes into articles. User:Langus-TxT did exactly the same with the now indefinitely blocked editor User:Alex79818 who stalked me in real life forcing a change of user name. When User:Gaba p started editing both User:Nick-D and User:JamesBWatson considered there was sufficient reason to consider User:Gaba p yet another sock puppet of the prolific sock puppeteer User:Alex79818. He was only unblocked after providing ID identification and I privately disclosed Alex's real life ID to James (I knew it from the stalking). After being the object of abuse from Gaba and Alex I remain convinced they're one and the same - the edit patterns are identical. And the edit patterns have the hallmark of a sleeper account, registered in 2009 [85] but no edits between 2010 and 2012 [86] and restarting editing immediately after another obvious sock was blocked. WP:DUCK.

You would find it difficult to find a posting where I have been uncivil, despite repeated provocation and I really don't think any editor should have to put up with this level of abuse. He's followed me all over wikipedia with the same attitude, I move on to improve another article and there he is. He'll make a whole host of allegations to muddy the waters and avoid sanctions again. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

First: I have no idea why Muginsx is attacking me so ferociously, he came out of nowhere a couple of weeks ago to threaten me in my talk page while as far as I can remember we had never crossed paths.

Wee was told by two other editors in addition to me and Langus in the RS/N that he was in fact engaging in WP:OR and WP:SYN in his attempts at removing a properly sourced sentence from an article. The sources I used are the ones directly recommended by those two editors at RS/N.

Yesterday Wee reverted 3 times and edit agreed upon by 3 different editors[87] (Langus, Churn and Change and myself)

A source which we were advised not to use by editors in the same RS/N discussion had to be removed on 3 occasions because Wee kept introducing it back to the article with every rv he made.

I tried several times to come to an agreement with Wee but he is hell-bent on keeping a properly sourced sentence out of WP and there is no middle ground: no matter what sources I or other editors present, he will immediately embark in a crusade to discredit it ("it's an Argentinian source", "it's ambiguous in its claims", "its contradicted by other sources") all based on his own WP:OR.

Wee had me blocked earlier this year accused of being a sock puppet. To this day Wee keeps accusing me of being the same person as Axel after I revealed my true identity to a WP administrator who ended up lifting the life-ban that had been imposed to my account. What else can I possibly do?? I've created two scientific articles about a topic that was missing from WP (Thin disk and Thick disk) and have two more in the same area in the making[88] Nothing will convince him that me and Axel are not the same person and he will keep attacking me on that grounds.

Let me try to put this as simple as I can. This is the sentence Wee is determined to keep out of WP and which sparkled this whole mess:

"Other authors state that the Argentine inhabitants were in fact expelled by the British."

The first source was advised to both of us to be used at the RS/N discussion (anybody can go and check this). The second source says verbatim: "The newly independent state of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata (Argentina) occupied the Islands in 1816, began their settlement in 1820, established a political and military command there in 1829, but was expelled by Britain in 1833.". Wee contests this source saying that "The comment here is just moving the goalposts"[89]. The third one is an article by an author who was also recommended at the RS/N as a trusted source[90]

My addition of this statement backed by those sources to the article was reverted 3 times by Wee yesterday. He routinely behaves as if he WP:OWNED several articles and as if his was the last word on the matter: I don't agree so it doesn't get consensus.

He will accuse me and Langus of WP:TAG teaming because we both agree that the sentence should be present in WP as does a third editor (Churn and Change), who recommended that much at the RS/N.

Wee accuses me of "getting bolder" when it was him who breached the 3RR yesterday by constantly reverting an edit agreed upon by 3 different editors.

"He's followed me all over wikipedia with the same attitude, I move on to improve another article and there he is", this is just a petty and untrue accusation. Several articles are related through the Falklands issue and Wee edits in all of them. Please take a look at my history[91] where you will find that 99% of my exchanges with Wee have taken place solely at the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute article. Aside from that one I have only collaborated in this one (Self-determination) and made two comments in the talk page of the Arana-Southern Treaty article long ago. That is all. Does this really count as me following Wee "all over wikipedia"?? Gaba p (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The opposite is true insofar as the "following all over Wikipedia" and Gaba's contributions provide the proof as I pointed out above. Gaba would like everyone to feel he is being persecuted when in fact he has been the persecutor and has has the help of User:Langus-TxT to help him at every opportunity - an editor that he knows full well also has a previous history with Wee and a careful review of his contributions [[92]] as well as his talk page remarks on the Falkland articles and his personal talk page and most recently here: [[93]] where he inserts himself into remarks that did not concern him, indicates a clear pattern as a tag-team participant with Gaba, at least to this veteran editor. Mugginsx (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Mugginsx I have no desire of anyone feeling that I'm being persecuted, it's you and Wee who are accusing me of persecuting him. As I said before, if one edits in almost any article related to the Falklands issue (as I have in only two of them) one is bound to come across Wee since he edits in virtually all of them (I restrain from saying literally because I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure it would be hard for anyone to come up with an article in WP about the Falklands that Wee isn't involved in)

Also, I find it funny to say the least how you are currently accusing Langus of not being involved in this current episode[94] and yet here you are. You, who I have never crossed paths before as far as I can remember prior to your out-of-nowhere attack in my talk page[95] (please point me to where we have if I'm mistaken), are right now defending Wee in a matter you were not involved in, in any of its ramifications (ie: the Self-determination article which you didn't edit, RS/N, DR/N, Ben MacDui's talk page[96], etc...) I have no problem with you defending Wee but, wouldn't you say you're being a tad hypocritical? Gaba p (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Gaba doesn't collaborate, he accuses someone of WP:OR and WP:SYN constantly and does not enter a discussion to find consensus, this is his mechanism to ignore any occasion when someone raises a quite reasonable point in talk. He accuses editors of lying rather than entering a discussion to find consensus. I am not proposing to discuss content at WP:ANI, which is about user behaviour, but there was a good reason given for reverting him and his dismissal as WP:OR and WP:SYN is not a reasonable response. I did not break WP:3RR, I gave an informative summary why I was reverting you and I raised it at WP:RSN, which is the latest place chosen to move the discussion. Unfortunately an editor at RSN forgot WP:BEANS and has given User:Gaba p another idea for disruptive and tendentious editing.

I end up in the classic dilemna faced by many productive editors at wikipedia who cares about WP:NPOV, when faced by an editor who won't discuss an edit in talk, who insists on bulldozing material into an article pushing a nationalist agenda of asking myself whether I should revert or not. If you examine User:Gaba p and User:Langus-TxT's edits they're not about improving wikipedia, they're about forcing what they refer to as the Argentine POV into articles. They're just getting more sophisticated about how they go about it.

You won't find me being uncivil to either and the last time this came up at an RFC an editor commented that my edits were fair and meticulously sourced [97], whilst Langus reverted cited edits without any real rationale. I've been hounded for a year. Virtually every edit I make is being reverted by these two, I have to take every edit round the boards to get 3rd party input. Really its beyond a joke. I can almost predict what will happen here, there'll be a load of tendentious arguments obscuring the real issues, Langus and Gaba will make a lot of unsubstantiated allegations against me and in the end nothing will happen. They'll continue doing makin life unpleasant here until I quit. Its exactly situations like this that is why wikipedia is losing productive content editors. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Wee, it is you who doesn't care about consensus. As I have pointed out already you reverted 3 times and edit that was agreed upon by 3 editors because you didn't agree with it.

You keep accusing me of being tendentious while it is you who is trying to keep a thoroughly sourced sentence out of WP by any means necessary. How am I bulldozing an edit that was agreed upon by at least 3 editors Wee? I'd say that it's actually you who are bulldozing said sentence out of WP, based (as was told to you not only by Langus and I but by two other editors at RS/N[98]) in your WP:OR and WP:SYN.

"Virtually every edit I make is being reverted by these two", Wee you know very well the opposite is actually true. In fact, it's the whole reason we are here now: because you reverted 3 times an edit agreed by 3 editors.

I have no desire of Wee being blocked (and of course no desire of being blocked myself), I just need Wee to stop acting like he WP:OWNED those articles he is involved in and accept that every once in a while other editors can and will make contributions to them and, though he may not personally agree with such edits, that is not a valid reason to remove them. Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you two now please stop continuing your fight on this page? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

As Wee has just said above, this is why good editors get tired and just give up on Wikipedia. I can say as a careful observer on the article edit history and the article talk pages that Gaba has been the obstructionist in this case and it seems that sadly, he just will say anthing it seems to keep an argument going. It seems that Wikipedia is just a "game" for him. I do not say that lightly. His language and his edits, especially on the Self-determination article, but elsewhere also, seem to indicate that he is not at all interested in the furtherance or the quality of the article, but to just continue the reverts and not discuss substance. I wanted to edit on the article but could see what was happening. It discourages other editor when they see this. It is really too bad, but something needs to be done to convince Gaba that Wikipedia is not a video game- the prime directive to outmaneuver and frustrate ones' opponent. I have been here on Wikipedia for some time and if there is one thing I have learned early (as most editors do) it is to differentiate the well-intentioned editors from the others. If proof is needed then it is here and in the article pages I have mentioned. Mugginsx (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Mugginsx, your recent vicious attacks at me have me baffled. You are the first editor to accuse me of more wrong-doing that Wee (and that is an amazing feat) What can I say in my defense if you have already uncovered the truth? Clearly this is a game to me, that's why I've put in so many hours trying to improve an article with a sentence that keeps getting reverted by Wee. Surely that's why I fought tooth and nail for over a month to have my account back when I was wrongly accused of being a sock-puppet to the point that I gave away my right to anonymity[99]. Right? One would say that an editor that takes WP as a game would have just let that account die and made another one. But hey, what do I know. I'm just a kid who thinks WP is a video-game. Cheers man.

Fut.Perf. yes, understood. I will only write here again if my input is requested. Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I have not been told I cannot edit here so I will answer as best I can. I wanted to contribute on that Falkslands related article. I took some time to research with the idea of inserting a constructive paragraph into Self-determination, which perhaps would also go into the sister article. What I saw there were two editors, both of whom have past beefs with editor Wee, tag-teaming him on purpose. How do I know this? Because I have been here a long time and because it is obvious to anyone who looks. I tried to approach you on this and you sent what I took to be a vicious email back to me. That matter has been resolved by an administrator and I will mention no further. The reverts of Wees work were discussed openly and honestly by one editor only, namely Wee. He presented argument with links which I looked up myself and found to be valid in my opinion. They were said to be false links or not good enough or one sided or pro-British or WP:OR anything that you and your team member could think of and the variety of your answers and the complete failure to have a civil conversation about the same edit showed to me that you were not sincere. I found those links with no trouble. Why couldn't you? No, there was something else going on there and perhaps it is really over this perceive injustice you mention, I do not know. You mention that Wee worked on many of the articles, so far as I know that is nothing wrong or new at Wikipedia and generally shows a real interest and knowledge in the subject. When working with other good faith editors, it usually makes for excellent articles. Anyway, when I said it looked like you were "Playing games" that is because that, to my mind, is exactly what was and still is happening, only now here on this board. I don't wish you ill will but I do not think you and your friend have been acting in good faith, as a matter of act, I know it. You seem like a very angry editor as does your friend and especially angry at Wee and as you just need to be prepared that other editors have other points of view on an article and if they are well-sourced, which this one was, and do not violate real wiki guidelines, then you have to let them in. Mugginsx (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It was earlier suggested by Administrator User:Ben MacDui that some links be provided here which serve to prove the accusations made by Wee, myself, and another editor. Here are some that I found:

See [100], [101], [102]. [103], [104],[105], [106], [107]. All examples of the same tendentious editing by User:Gaba p. His constantly treats present historical events as just a British claim. Referring to the talk page Wee shows that sources of all nationalities confirm the same series of events, original eye witness accounts of all nationalities agree. He has never produced a source to back this up see WP:DRN#Self-determination, when asked his response is to accuse Wee of WP:OR and WP:SYN and not answer.

[108] An example of a typical response to attempting to engage Gaba in a reasonable discussion. In one response Gaba accuses Wee of using talk page discussions to maintain the status quo, editing because of a dislike of Argentina, claiming all Wee's sources are "pro-British", instead of looking at the sources Wee provides, he simply accuses Wee of deciding what is fact and what is a lie. Mugginsx (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

(Ignoring groundless accusations from an editor I've just have met, and to whom I am suspicious as he claims to know very well my activities in WP)

These edit wars stem from the inability (or unwillingness) of Wee Curry Monster to correctly interpret the advice of knowledgeable editors, together with his "not-give-an-inch" behavior and WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT attitude when he believes he's right (possibly always).

In this particular case, two times uninvolved editors have told WCM to attribute the statements and not incur in original research: this NPOVN thread three months ago, and this recent one at WP:RSN. But, as you can see from the comments in both threads, he just isn't prepared to accept he's wrong.

In the last three reverts by WCM to the article, you can see he's pushing in the source Key to an Enigma, by Oliveri López. If you took the time to read through the last NPOVN thread, you should know that Lopez was recommended to be avoided, but that instead Risman could and should[109][110][111] be used. Attitudes like these are the ones that cause an edit war.

Also note that WCM did broke the 3RR rule: [112][113][114][115]
And he nearly did so again yesterday: [116][117][118]

An example of WCM fighting till the end an edit backed by the majority can be found here (please note the reactions at subsection Enough when WCM accuses of TAG-TEAMING). This Thatcher issue led to a Mediation Cabal case which, despite the remarkable well-played role of the mediator, ended up in nothing. If you read the article now, the "Leaders" section of the infobox is missing.

Another example of his intransigence: an administrator tells him to be careful with accusations of vandalism, and he merely dismisses his advice.

Finally, I'd like to point out that insinuations of socket-puppetry in discussions like this are completely unacceptable. I've been victim of this harassment by WCM for a year or so, till he finally seemed to stop after a discussion at Wikiquette Assistance (do note how he ends up fighting the volunteer).
Or maybe it was just a coincidence, I don't really know given how he refused to acknowledge the opinions there. --Langus (t) 03:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - I point out sources are in agreement [119], [120] contentious argument but no reply and simply asserting its a British Claim. Repeat and you have entire talk page discussion. And as Mugginsx shows above the pair of them edit war their own WP:OR and WP:SYN into the article whilst accusing others of the same.

The "thoroughly sourced sentence" is sourced but the language in the source is ambiguous and its being used out of context. Its a classic example of abusing sources to make a point the original author didn't intend to make and they ignore the comment on p.300 in the same source that contradicts it. Relevant quotes are at WP:DRN as well as my attempt to discuss it before they chose to edit war it into the article.

His claim that I broke 3RR is untrue the first edit linked to above is a correction to an untrue statement introduced by Langus. I don't edit war, I tried to follow WP:BRD but that was frustrated by WP:TAG from these two to force a change into the article. I truly believe they were trying to get me to break 3RR to get me blocked.

As regards the NPOVN discussion, I still remain unconvinced. The source they wanted to use made a claim attributing a statement to another author. That author made a completely different statement in line with all of the other sources. WP:COMMON still seems to suggest that is sufficient cause for a discussion about its reliability - but you can't discuss with two editors who constantly accuse of WP:OR and WP:SYN rather than address a concern you raise.

The Medcab case he refers to as an example of my intransigence, I made a post in talk, waited for 2 weeks for a response, having not got one made a WP:BOLD edit, that was reverted out of hand, the editor then posted at WT:MILHIST canvassing other editors to follow him. It was I who started the Medcab and read it, I make comments about content the protagonist in that case makes a lot of allegations but no comment on content. How is it intransigent to follow WP:DR and remains WP:CIVIL?

I did disagree with User:Dennis Brown we had an extensive discussion on his talk page, we agree to disagree. However, given the conversation remained civil neither of us bear any grudge about it. Please ask him - and btw this is the second time Langus has tried to make more of our discussion than it was, we all disagree from time to time but a frank (but civil) exchange of views is healthy.

As regards the comments about sock puppets. Falklands articles have been plagued by a prolific sock puppeteer. The profile of many of these is an account registered between 2007 and 2009 that doesn't edit for years, then embarks on edit wars to insert the Argentine POV. Langus' editing and Gaba p's editing fit the same profile.

Like I said I expected a load of frivolous allegations to obscure the central issue, which is that Langus and Gaba will edit war to force what they describe as the Argentine POV into articles and what they refer to as the truth from the Argentine perspective into articles. They've followed me to multiple articles and have plagued my edits. Enough is enough. They can't accept that NPOV is about presenting the weight of opinion in the literature and the British and Argentine positions from a neutral perspective. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has now become a mirror image of the edit summaries and talk pages of the articles mentioned here. Wee and I provide links and Gaba and Langus still refuse to discuss CONTENT. Now instead Gaba, is accusing me of having some "special knowledge of his activities", (who does he think I am, Jimbo Wales assistant?. ) Langus, (his relentless assistant), also with the underlying motive of revenge for WeeCurryMonster, have also continued to use and pervert the guidelines and rules of Wikipedia to obstruct and frustrate this discussion just as they both did on the Wikipedia article detailed here - using misrepresentations, Wikipedia:Tag team and innuendo. I repeat the obvious intention is to frustrate and pervert the well-intended process here and ultimately to make a fool of the all of the editors and administrators who volunteer their time trying to work toward an honest solution. The proof has been abundantly provided here. There are volumes more at the article(s) talk page.

Langus even had the audacity to interject snide comments on another page into a finished discussion that I had with an administrator over something that did not in anyway concern him! It was not until the administrator came back to comment, that he slithered away and has now finally come here to turn and twist the truth in the same way and manner he thinks he is so skilled at - under the apparent delusion that he is cleverer and smarter that everyone here, including the administrators! Langus, for your information it was Gaba who was the first one to bring up the sockpuppetry accusations not anyone else. Just another intentional misrepresentation. Langus, instead of being clever here, your are sadly acting like the most common form of a Wikipedia troublemarker. Unfortunately, we have more then our share of those and do not need anymore. This is turning into one of the worst examples of editors’ misconduct I have ever personally seen on Wikipedia and to allow them to get away with it is to laugh in the face of every well-intentioned volunteer and administrator here and at Wikipedia as a whole. The proof is abundantly clear and I think it is time to shut this sham of a discussion down and sanction these two editors Gaba and Langus to send a message that Wikipedia editors and administrators are tired of Wikipedia:Tag teameditors who waste everyone's time and make serious and productive editors want to give up and leave Wikipedia. In my opinion, further discussion is pointless but a sanction on these two editors made just work and avoid further escalation and further waste of everyone's time. In my experience, it is the only things that does work.

• I respectfully move to close this discussion with a request for sanctions against especially User:Langus-TxT who does not even respect the decision of administrators, [[121]] for obvious Tag Teaming and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and User:Gaba p who has spent one year obstructing and reverting Wee's Reliable Sources [[122]] even after they were verified at [[123]] and not acting in good faith. This will hopefully put a stop to abuse and finally to allow the the hard-working and serious editors and the administrators here to go back to the usually joyful work of creating and/or improving Wikipedia articles and working with good faith editors. Mugginsx (talk) 10:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  For heaven's sake, Muggins, can you please stop fiddling with your own postings for ours on end? You've now edited your own posting like, how many times, twenty? What I'm seeing here is walls of text, and maybe you should start asking yourself whether the fact that this thread has been drawing next to no outside participation from uninvolved editors might be related to your own behaviour here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I have been busy adding links to my last paragraph to show the abuse links which did unfortunately take some more doing then I expected. I have not re-factored any previous paragraphs. I will certain defer to your request. The walls of text, I am not sure what you mean. I was requested by an administrator to add Links and I complied. Sorry, if it caused any problems. I like to be exact and may have been overenthusiastic in that pursuit. Apologies Mugginsx (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

FutPer, you were pretty quick to insert - as an editor with some strong interactions with WCM in the past - your opinion for a block on him alone. From all of this it is rather clear you were very wrong as to the uniqueness of WCM in this, I hope we can now see a recognition of your error? WCM's failure is that he is happy to fight on his own like a dog in a corner for what he feels is right against what he perceives are agenda pushers. It has its draw backs, and at times he drifts over the line, but your perptual blindness to the actions others take in situation around him is baffling. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The almost instant call for a block on Wee by Adm. Fut. who has a prior history with him did take me by surprise as well. I had never seen that before. Now there are two editors and one administrator involved in this dispute with a unrelated negative past history with Wee. Probably a good reason to recuse oneself if only for the avoidance of the appearance of impropriety. Mugginsx (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The above accusations are numerous and not straightforward to unravel. No-one involved should think they are immune to criticism. Here are a few questions for some of the individuals concerned. They are not the only ones that arise by any means and my second one, for example, might well be asked of more than one editor.

1. WCM, you remain convinced that Gaba p and indef blocked User:Alex79818 are one and the same. The history of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex79818/Archive is certainly a disturbing one and there are some similarities. For example, it seems an extraordinary coincidence that Gaba p began editing at Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute after a two year absence at the time User:Abenyosef was reported as a suspected sock of Alex79818. However, I am puzzled as to why you think they are one and the same given that Gaba p seems to have provided a real-life identity that is not the same as that of Alex79818. This is a serious accusation - but how do you justify it beyond assertions about WP:DUCK?

2. Assuming WCM is wrong in this assertion, the accusations nonetheless draw attention to similar behaviours even if they are being carried out by different persons. Mugginsx reminds us of the unhappy truth that disruptive behaviour "is why good editors get tired and just give up on Wikipedia". Gaba p, your inability to see anything disruptive in your approach, your disregard for WP:CIVIL and your ongoing edit warring give cause for concern. There isn't much that I have seen at Self-determination that suggests your input is improving the article and it must surely be off-putting to editors who do not share your enthusiasms. Do you think the encyclopedia would be harmed if you were given a topic ban on Falklands related articles, and if so, why?

3. Langus-TxT - you have been accused of operating as a tag team with both Alex79818 and Gaba p. Perhaps I missed a response in all the verbiage. What do you have to say about this?

Finally, we can all see that this situation has created ill-feeling that has been going on for too long, but it is in no-one's interests to issue threats. Please try to remain civil with one another. Please also try to keep your responses on-topic and as brief as possible. Sometimes less is more. Ben MacDui 15:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

From WP:TAG_TEAM: "Tag teaming (sometimes also called a "Travelling Circus") is a debatably form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus."

I have never done such a thing. My opinions tend to agree with those of other Argentine editors, and I have interest on the Falklands topic (as does Gaba p, Wee Curry Monster, and others), but that's it. I honestly don't remember too much about Alex, he was blocked shortly after I started to edit regularly, about 1,5 years ago. But I can assure that a) I am not him (and by now every editor in the Falklands articles know this, except perhaps WCM); and b) I never worked as a team with him, even if I may have supported a particular edit. The same goes to Gaba p.

Honestly, I've stopped responding to WCM's accusations of tag-teaming, and I think it's the best thing I can do. --Langus (t) 17:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I also accused him Ben and I do not take that back. The evidence is overwhelming. I think the best thing is an article ban for the tag team. Sorry, I am always ready to forgive after an honest apology because we all make mistakes, but there in no repentance here, just more denial. Mugginsx (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Mr Macdui, no there is more to it than that. I'll email you some more information that I can't reveal here. User:Nick-D considered the style was so similar he blocked Gaba straight away. User:JamesBWatson also considered the style so similar he considered not unblocking, despite the ID information. Stylistically they're identical eg [124] note the long tendentious repeating argument, the remarks directed toward me and the groundless accusation of POV editing, accusations of WP:OR etc, compare with the comments by Gaba at Talk:Self-determination, the habit of using bold text to highlight. Not to mention the use of source with a heavy POV slant. I could indicate more but per WP:BEANS its probably not a good idea. Take a gander at both contribution histories and you'll see what I mean. If you'd been harassed by Alex since 2007 you'd readily recognise the style.

As regards Langus, his remark above speaks volumes though I would imagine he still doesn't get it, specifically My opinions tend to agree with those of other Argentine editors, so he'll revert war in concert with other editors he agrees with to force those opinions into articles. We don't edit in line with our personal opinions, we put that aside to reflect what out sources say. Unfortunately Langus and Gaba select sources to support the edit they wish to make. He is constantly referring to having the Argentine POV represented, basically he doesn't understand NPOV on wikipedia. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

And here's what User:Nick-D said after Wee approached him a couple of days ago:

"Given that my block of that editor was (probably rightly) lifted as being a case of mistaken identity once further evidence was provided to an uninvolved admin, I'm not well placed to intervene with the admin tools in relation to their editing"

Admin User:JamesBWatson didn't even respond Wee after he made the same "plea for help" to him.

Ben, I'll make you the same offer I made Nick-D and James: have Wee tell you the identity of Alex and I'll once again reveal my identity as a sign of good faith, this time to you. I'm prepared to give you access to my FB and G+ just like I did with James and I'll respond any question you may need to ask me to convince yourself I am not that editor. Aside from this, I don't believe there's anything else I can do to once again stop Wee from accusing me of being a sock puppet. Gaba p (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to keep it as short as possible.

WCM actually knows Alex real life identity. That's why the ban was lifted after I gave away my right to anonymity, because the admin could check that we in fact were not the same person. I also point to the two small but highly scientific articles I've created so far (Thin disk and Thick disk) Did Axel ever do anything like that? Because that would be too much coincidence. I have a scientific training in physics and astronomy which I'm willing to put to the test anytime (I can't believe I'm still being called out to prove I'm not that editor...)

Ben, you seem to be taking sides assuming Wee is the good editor (prolific doesn't mean balanced) and I am the disruptive editor here. Just to remind us all why we are here: WCM reverted 3 times an edit agreed upon by 3 editors which he still denies. Yet you accuse me of "ongoing edit warring" and of "inability to see anything disruptive in your approach"??

Some context on the "disregard for WP:CIVIL" accusation. Editor Muggins and I had never crossed paths until he left this message on my talk page (note the tone) I responded here. He then proceeded to accuse me, out of the blue, of lots of things and to ask Ben for a ban on me. This is the response to that comment which Ben refers to as uncivil from my part (please do read it) Ben deleted that comment (but not Muggins comment) and I acknowledged that such comment could be taken as an offense by some editor[125]. Please also read this bizarre attack from Muggins (in hidden section) where he calls me sleezy. Ben does not consider this as uncivil apparently.

Ben, you haven't seen much because there isn't really much to see. This whole mess can be traced to the sentence: "Other authors state that the Argentine inhabitants were in fact expelled by the British", which is basically what WCM reverted 3 times. It's a minor edit in it's extension but a very important one because it presents the view of several authors contrary to the view that supports the British claim (which is already present in the article) Yes, I do believe WP would be harmed because WCM would never approve (yes, approve because WCM behaves as if he WP:OWNED Falklands-related articles) the inclusion of counter-sources for the British claim (as he still is attempting to do, given that the article has a NPOV template) without an editor willing to go through all this trouble. Gaba p (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

No an editor at RSN suggested that source, noting my comment that it was self-contradictory. I expressed a concern the language was too ambiguous to support the claim it was supposed to support but you and Langus took that suggestion as a mandate to force it into the article and ignore the BRD process. You didn't have any such mandate. You refused to discuss it - forcing me into a quandary - you'll note I didn't break 3RR nevertheless.

You also edit warred to force the previous edit into the article, ignoring my concerns till RSN showed it was unreliable - a polite discussion in talk would have resolved matters long before that. As regards the NPOV tag - note the talk page discussion I started again. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Wee you know you can't just lie like that here in WP where everyone can go check the written record of what you did. "you'll note I didn't break 3RR nevertheless", I've lost track of the number of times you've denied breaking the 3RR by now. Here's what is stored in the article's history: I make the edit[126] and 4 minutes later Wee makes the first revert[127]. Langus reverts Wee[128] and 7 minutes later Wee reverts a second time[129]. Now I revert Wee [130] and I even add a third source for the statement[131] (a source whose author was recommended at the RS/N) 7 minutes later Wee reverts a third time[132], the new source plus the rest.

Each of Wee's reverts brought back into the article the source showed to be unreliable at RS/N (Lopez). In his blind reverts Wee edited that source back into the article, even tough he knew just as well as me or Langus that we were advised not to use it. His reverts even added back an obvious grammatical mistake ("contemporary records historical") which I had corrected and pointed out to him in the Talk page days ago on the 14th[133].

The fact that you would feel comfortable repeating something you know is untrue time after time (at the Admin noticeboard nonetheless) makes me think you must be really confident about not getting blocked. Gaba p (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thats a very carefully selected series of diffs to create a misleading impression. (1) I didn't break 3RR, I didn't cross the line. (2) See also [134] which precedes your edit, indicating that I didn't consider it adequately verified the claim. (3) [135] the edit summary draws attention to the discussion.

I tried to discuss this with you before you made the edit and you'll note I refrained from making the edit I'd suggested [136] whilst waiting for consensus to be formed. You and Langus formed a tag team to force it into the article, whilst DR was in progress, I refrained from editing my proposal. I wouldn't normally have reverted 3 times either but I was asking you to follow BRD. There isn't a grammar error, though you have manged to mangle a sentence and separated a comment from the statement it was supporting. You left a CN tag on material you previously removed a UN cite for, to replace by Lopez which you'd edit warred into the article previously. You know what yes you can check the history. I invite everyone to do so. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

How can you say "I didn't break 3RR, I didn't cross the line" (whatever crossing the line means) and then say "I wouldn't normally have reverted 3 times". You are acknowledging you reverted 3 times in a matter of hours but somehow it isn't a breach of the 3RR?

"indicating that I didn't consider it adequately verified the claim", brilliant example of Wee acting as if he WP:OWNED the article. The edit was backed by 3 editors but since he didn't agree with it, there is no consensus and thus it isn't allowed in WP.

"You and Langus formed a tag team", no we did not. We, along with a third editor agreed on an edit you disagreed with. Your accusation of tag team are getting older and weaker each time you do it.

"There isn't a grammar error", maybe I'm not understanding your english correctly but "contemporary records historical" reads like an error to me (the correct wording being "contemporary historical records"), which you introduced with one of your edits[137] and I corrected right after[138]. This didn't last long though, since with every one of your rv's you kept putting it back in.

"You left a CN tag on material you previously removed a UN cite for, to replace by Lopez which you'd edit warred into the article previously". First: there was never a UN source for said claim when I added the cn tag, there was actually no source at all which is why I added the tag. Please go check my first edit made to the article[139], it's the last cn tag I added. Second: the Lopez source was added by Moxy[140] not by me and certainly not in replace of anything. Third: such a claim can only be sourced with an official Argentinian source because it is an official Argentinian position what is being stated. It can't be sourced with a history book and much less a book that was advised to both you and me not to use as a source. Yet in spite of all this you kept adding that book as a source for that claim over and over again.

Wee, the statement is backed by three reputable sources (I'm pretty sure I can get more) and backed by 3 editors. The question is: will you stop removing said statement? Gaba p (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I have collected more evidence against the tag-teaming accusation, in case it's needed. --Langus (t) 20:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Could we possibly have some more outside admin eyes here? On examining the edit-warring history and the surrounding talk page hullaballoo, I'd be ready to impose blocks on the two main offenders, but one of them has voiced concerns he would consider me "involved" (because of some unrelated conflict he had with me four years ago), so I'd prefer to hand this over to somebody else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

So you'd advocate blocking the only person who remained civil, started DR, started talk page discussions as one of the "main offenders" and leave the way clear for his mate to carry on his agenda? And do you seriously think he won't pop up again with a new sock puppet with 5 minutes? In which case, what is the point of following WP:CIVIL or even WP:DR? Its certainly not in any way preventative, its punitive simply because of an RFC 4 years ago that examined abuse of admin powers in image deletions by FPaS.

I've remained civil, I've followed WP:DR and more importantly never broke 3RR. I started the talk page discussion before Gaba and his mate started to edit war in the midst of DR to impose their opinion. I've provided the diffs to show it, the others have provide nothing to substantiate their allegations, except for them to serve to muddy the waters.

Simple example, above Gaba claims this wasn't cited to a UN document [141] sorry but the article history tells a different story. Tell me how can a disruptive editor get away with lying so blatantly at ANI in order to get an established and productive editor blocked. May I also ask why you haven't been checking the diffs supplied as it seems manifestly obvious you're not checking the evidence.

Please tell me how am I supposed to discuss content with two editors who repeat the mantra everything opposing them is WP:OR and WP:SYN and never discuss anything? You know that nationalism is a pox on wikipedia but you clearly don't care about the problem. Settling old scores is more important it seems, it really saddens me, it really does. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

To add, simple question This is where I started, this is my last edit and this is the article today. Which of these are representing a NPOV and can you spot the obvious flaw in one? Which one is abusing their sources to attribute a meaning their authors never intended? Which editor would you want editing to present a NPOV, because I'm intrgued to know. Really at the end of the day, do you want the editor presenting a NPOV, or get him out of the way to clear the field for the editor that doesn't? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

"Gaba claims this wasn't cited to a UN document [142] sorry but the article history tells a different story". What in god's name are you talking about??? The UN citation is still there Wee I never touched it[143] PLEASE some admin go to the article and check reference [81] which is the one Wee keeps saying I removed. He is lying again and again, I never touched that reference!. You are the disruptive editor Wee, you are the one who started this and you are the one who ended up breaking the 3RR rule, not me YOU. I have had it with your constant accusation of sock puppet Wee, you need to drop it. I can't believe you have the nerve of claiming you have remained civil while constantly accusing me of being a sock puppet.

It was not just Langus and I who told him he was incurring in WP:OR and WP:SYN, two more editors told him the exact same thing at RS/N and he still won't acknowledge it[144]:

1. "Yes, the fact-checking you are doing is OR"; Churn and change (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
2. "WCM: You aren't a political historian on wikipedia—you're an encyclopaedia editor, stop engaging in original historical research."; Fifelfoo (talk) 02:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Wee had no valid reason to remove 3 times a properly sourced statement backed by 3 editors. Fut.P, what did I do to deserve a ban? He's the one who broke the 3RR not me. Why would I be banned for adding to an article a thoroughly sourced statement backed by two more editors?? Gaba p (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, time out.

You (all) have uninvolved administrators attention. This will get reviewed. It's not going to be easy to review. Please stop re-fighting the arguments from elsewhere here on ANI; it will not help you or speed up the process or make it a higher quality review.

Please be patient. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Administrators may need to take into account the following issue: [145][146] --Langus (t) 23:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you point to where I've been uncivil Langus? That case relates to a time where I was suffering from mental health problems and was having a hard time of it - I made some grossly uncivil remarks, for which I apologised unreservedly and made no attempt to justify my actions. My editing was very uncharacteristic. There is a part of the WP:CIVIL that suggests it is very uncivil to fling accusations for past conduct, when an editor has apologised sincerely and has not repeated the behaviour. Please think about that for a moment. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

How about you calling me a sock-puppet, a disruptive editor, a tag-teamer, a mud slinger and a POV pusher every other two sentences Wee? I'd definitely say that qualifies as being uncivil, wouldn't you?. Gaba p (talk) 17:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Per comment above by Georgewilliamherbert I am not encouraging further discussion, but for the benefit of those attempting to make sense of these lengthy discussions I note the following in respect of my above questions.

1. WCM remains convinced that Gaba p and Alex79818 are one and the same. No new evidence has been submitted as such, but the issue might benefit from some fact-finding. WCM needs to recognise that edit warring is not a concept that is defined by and limited to 3RR, as no doubt do others.

2. I note that Gaba p does not provide a clear answer my question, but simply goes on a further spree of accusations. Some of them may be merited, but that is not the point. WCM's alleged ownership of articles is not an excuse for disrupting them.

3. Langus-TxT's answers have the considerable virtue of brevity. His statement that "my opinions tend to agree with those of other Argentine editors" does hint at an unfamiliarity with the concept of NPOV, but whilst tedious and time-consuming it should not be hard to form an opinion as to whether or not he has been tag teaming. Ben MacDui 07:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Mr Macdui, just for the record, I revert another editor with great reluctance and I don't consider 3RR gives me 3 reverts, I practise and follow WP:BRD. The appearance of edit warring stems from encountering two editors determined to have their way. Their behaviour has been observed on multiple articles, they've been reverted by multiple editors on those occasions. This is a niche article that has two focuses for interest, one of which is an anorak like myself. I find myself alone on this occasion seeing good work taken in a direction away from a neutral perspective. I tried the talk page, I followed DR, I remained civil, I tried to get help on multiple occasions to bring the situation under control and on each occasion its swamped by huge waves of tendentious argument, flinging lots of accusations about, with no substance behind them. The tactic seems to be fling loads of mud around to obscure the issue and I'll be honest in that it seems to be very successful. Really if you think any of my editing is problematic I am open to a discussion as to how I could have handled it better. My only motivation is to write articles on an area of interest of mine, in which I have a great deal of knowledge and experience, my track record is to write in a neutral manner and I really could do with being left to get on with what I'm good at - creating article content. Its all I really want to do, I don't need this hassle as it makes wikipedia a chore rather than a pleasure.

May I also request you discuss with User:Nick-D why I might be reluctant to comment on the information i do have about Alex79818.

As regards the accusation of WP:OWN, look at the article history I changed the edit to reflect concerns expressed. Further in regards of such accusations, they're following me here. I moved to get away from them and they followed me. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Ben, just three small things: you only asked me one question and I answered it fully, should I try to be more clear? Could you point me to the edit (or group of edits) of mine you regard as disruptive (if not here at least in my talk page)? My offer made above still stands: have WCM tell you the ID of this editor and as a sign of good faith I will reveal myself to you to convince you I am not that person. Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I will consider the contents of the above two posts and revert here in due course. Ben MacDui 17:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless admin feel that blocks are appropriate I suggest kicking this over to Wikipedia:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group where this should have been worked out to begin with.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

A well intended suggestion, I have no doubt, so I will make one too, and that is: that after Talk:Self-determination then Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and then Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and finally HERE, not to mention the various other User: talk pages, etc., and finally the PRIOR HISTORIES all of which have either been mentioned or linked here, I would suggest a temporary or permanent interactive ban OR article ban between the editors would better solve the problem quickly and permanently. Wikipedia:Banning policy It fits. Mugginsx (talk) 10:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

A proposal

I would like to make a proposal that I hope will go some way to nip this unpleasantness in the bud.

1. Gaba and Langus agree to an interaction ban for 1 year, ie they will not edit articles where I am active. I agree to do the same.

2. Gaba and Langus agree to accept a mentor to coach them on the NPOV policy. As Mr MacDui notes above their responses here indicate that neither grasp the fundamentals of the policy.

3. Gaba and Langus agree as part of the mentoring approach to respond to talk page messages in a civil manner and to engage in discussion to meet consensus. They both need to realise that it is not sufficient to simply repeatedly dismiss a comment as WP:OR and WP:SYN - they have to discuss it.

4. Gaba agrees to a voluntary 1 year topic ban on Falkland's articles, broadly construed. He indicates that he wishes to contribute to wikipedia on astronomy articles, this will give him a chance to work on content in an area where he does not hold strong opinions.

5. If Mr MacDui considers I could have handled things another way, I am perfectly happy to take direction and even mentoring if he thinks it appropriate.

6. At the end of any interaction/topic bans, all 3 editors agree to bind themselve to BRD ie if any of their reverts the edits of another, all will agree to discuss till a consensus is achieved. One caveat to this is that this is not an excuse to filibuster discussions for ever to frustrate consensus and if an uninvolved admin sees this to be the case he will institute an escalating series of blocks till the behaviour ceases. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? How can you even begin to consider I will accept being banned for a full year for a matter that came to ANI after you broke the 3RR reverting an edit agreed upon by 3 editors? You edit-war an article and me and Langus get banned? Wee let me remind you that two more editors advised you to stop engaging in WP:OR and WP:SYN[147], you can keep repeating it was just me and Langus but that doesn't make it true. What would you think if I made a counter-proposal where I advised for you to be banned for a year from all Falkland-related articles given your strong opinions on the matter? Do I need to mention your 48hs block for breaking the 3RR 3 days after you started editing the spanish WP (in a Falklands article of course)[148]? Does it really need to come to this because you refuse to accept a sourced sentence in an article? Gaba p (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Just unbelievable. You've just barely dodged a ban and yet you have the delusional idea of playing the admin.

First of all, let me start by saying that on 25 August, 2011, I made some proposals to try to stop this from happening, when no admin was looking. You declined them.

Let me explain you why this "proposal" is largely uneven:

"1. Gaba and Langus agree to an interaction ban for 1 year, ie they will not edit articles where I am active. I agree to do the same." -- have you even stopped to think about how this rule #1 applies to articles in which all of us are active? Should we all withdraw or are you expecting that all of them are yours? Furthermore: why are you redefining the expression "interaction ban" when there's already a very precise one?

"2. Gaba and Langus agree to accept a mentor to coach them on the NPOV policy. As Mr MacDui notes above their responses here indicate that neither grasp the fundamentals of the policy." -- you've been told in two different noticeboards[149][150] that you don't grasp the fundamentals of the WP:OR policy. Yet, you are not submitting yourself to coaching.

"3. Gaba and Langus agree as part of the mentoring approach to respond to talk page messages in a civil manner and to engage in discussion to meet consensus." -- let's just say you would definitely benefit of such a mentoring... Your activities at the Wikiquette noticeboard and the Gibraltar articles should hint you so.

"4. Gaba agrees to a voluntary 1 year topic ban on Falkland's articles, broadly construed. He indicates that he wishes to contribute to wikipedia on astronomy articles, this will give him a chance to work on content in an area where he does not hold strong opinions." -- NO COMMENTS. You're unilaterally topic-banning Gaba p. Unbelievable.

"5. If Mr MacDui considers I could have handled things another way, I am perfectly happy to take direction and even mentoring if he thinks it appropriate." -- this is all the burden you put on yourself: a non-confirmed mentoring to be determinated by a hand-picked admin. Maybe you should propose "...and even ban if he thinks it appropriate", the same way you've just banned Gaba? That would at least make it interesting. ;)

"6. At the end of any interaction/topic bans, all 3 editors agree to bind themselve to BRD ie if any of their reverts the edits of another, all will agree to discuss till a consensus is achieved. One caveat to this is that this is not an excuse to filibuster discussions for ever to frustrate consensus and if an uninvolved admin sees this to be the case he will institute an escalating series of blocks till the behaviour ceases." -- a well oriented rule on which I would LOVE to work on, but you have to understand that if we don't clearly define a way to determine if there's consensus or not for a proposed change, we'll end up here again.

All these series of "sanctions" and impositions against Gaba and me, compared to the not-confirmed sanction against you (which could be none) shows that, to your eyes, Gaba and Langus are more guilty than Wee Curry Monster. A view that it's not entirely shared by everyone: [151][152]. And reviewing the history of this talk page I can see a few editors/admins that have suffered you in the past. Maybe they're excusing themselves?

If you're going to argue that the proposal is even, fair and "neutral", then I'll make a counter-offer, that in that case should be the same one for you:

counter-proposal

1. Wee Curry Monster agrees to an interaction ban for 1 year, ie he will not edit articles where Gaba P or me are active. Gaba P and I agree to do the same. 2. Wee Curry Monster agrees to accept a mentor to coach him on the WP:OR policy. As the comments in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Verification_source_citations_is_this_WP:OR_and_WP:SYN.3F note, he doesn't grasp the fundamentals of the policy. 3. Wee Curry Monster agrees as part of the mentoring approach to respond to talk page messages in a civil manner and to engage in discussion to meet consensus. He needs to realise that it is not sufficient to simply edit war his view into the article - he has to discuss it. 4. Wee Curry Monster agrees to a voluntary 1 year topic ban on UK-related articles, broadly construed. He indicates that he wishes to contribute to wikipedia on (topic? help me here) articles, this will give him a chance to work on content in an area where he does not hold strong opinions. 5. If Mr MacDui considers I could have handled things another way, I am perfectly happy to take direction and even mentoring if he thinks it appropriate. 6. At the end of any interaction/topic bans, all 3 editors agree to bind themselve to BRD ie if any of their reverts the edits of another, all will agree to discuss till a consensus is achieved. If this point is accepted, it will be immediately defined how consensus will be determined and the necessary metrics so as no party can claim that "filibustering" is occurring.

See how it changes when you turn the play board? That's asymmetry.

Bye Wee. --Langus (t) 03:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

::I found this at the other noticeboard with no appropriate message given here.

I am closing this DR/N as the wrong venue at this time. The workgroup is a better place to discuss this seemgly endless dispute. If the group cannot not work this out it may be returned to DR/N. It may be a good idea to use some of the suggestions made here, but this should have been taken to the project before it got out of hand at AN/I and DR/N.Amadscientist (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC) — If you find this explanation unhelpful, feel free to inquire on the closer's talk page.

::And another annoucement here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group

Dispute Self determinationA DR/N and AN/I case has been opened in regards to this article under the scope of this project work group. I have kicked the DR/N back to this group for discussion. Any questions can be addressed on my talk page...in a civil manner please.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Another useless effort and waste of time.

:Who has made this determination? Has an administrator agreed to this duplicative discussion or is it even needed? What a collosial waste of time. No wonder why editors say nothing gets solved here at Wikipedia. Did anyone ever read Forum Shopping? I copied these announcements and entered them here and elsewhere. Mugginsx (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Gaba p would you mind stopping the re-factoring and putting you remarks where they do NOT belong. You have been told that by an Administrator here and elsewhere and by other editors and yet you keep doing it. You cannot continue to arrange this discussion in the order and in the way you wish it went but rather in the order of the edit as shown by the time stamp. Please put your latest paragraph where it belongs Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. In case you have lost track I am referring to the edit before mine stamped Gaba p (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC) Thank you. Geez! Mugginsx (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Muggins, I wrote my comment above yours because I'm responding to Wee's "proposal" and not to your somewhat displaced comment that would be better fitted for Amadscientist's talk page who made both comments you are referring to. I am not re-factoring anything and as you will see it is a quite common thing to do. You can check for example this very same page not two comments above this new sub-section, where Wee inserted his comment (16:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)) above mine (12:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)). I'd appreciate it if you would cease the random attacks against me please. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, mybad. You do the same please because I am tired of it and you are no victim.Mugginsx (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Request for Uninvolved Administrator to close. After reading all of the noticeboards, talk page discussions, etc., on this subject up to and including the most recent comments from both Gaba p and Langus txt, it seems clear that neither is going to stop harassing Wee. They both have prior negative history with Wee and it is obvious that in their view this is pay-back time. My review of especially User:Gaba p's edits show edits on only two of the Falklands article and those edits are extremely minimal and specifically

targeted to attack and frustrate Wee's edits, showing no real desire to improve the articles. Many times User:Langus-TxT is backing him up. I do not believe Gaba p has any real interest in the Falklands articles, truth be told. I therefore once again propose an interactive ban or article ban among some or all of them. I hope some uninvolved administrator will see this farce for what it is and propose this solution. I believe it is the only way. Wikipedia:Banning policy Article, topic, or editor interaction was created for JUST THIS SITUATION. Let's put this problem to sleep once and for all. To propose yet another format or noticeboard is Forum Shopping, is useless, is a waste of time and will NOT work. It will not work because there is no good-faith on the part of the tag team. Once again, I believe it is time for the non-involved administrator to take this action and I sincerely hope he does so. Mugginsx (talk) 07:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

My ear itches....someone must be talking about me on AN/I.....without notifying me. Why do I not trust someone who goes out of their way to use me, my posts and my DR/N closing and yet doesn't bother to follow intructions for this board to request a closing as "forum shopping"?--Amadscientist (talk) 09:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Should there be topic bans for everyone? Call it an early Christmas gift.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

You have it exactly backwards. I believe it was you that should have notified here. Please be civil. Mugginsx (talk) 09:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

At least this reminded me to double check and see if I had left a message at the IP's page for the discussion below. Why do you suppose I had an obligation to notify this board of my closing a DR/N? How does that excuse you not notifying me that you are posting my comments? Please...be as detailed as wish.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

If I should have notified you that you have my apologies. The remarks were not personal to you but rather that you seemed to want to make this ANI void and return it to a committee which would have obvious limitations as to scope of the real problems being discussed here. The problems here exceed the scope of the committee. Mugginsx (talk) 09:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah...that was not civil of you to accuse me of attempting void an AN/I filing. Care to explain that one? AN/I is not a related board to DR/N, which is an informal process that is non binding. This board is for administrative intervention and may result in actual sanctions. My accepting your apology is neither here nor there. What is your purpose in dragging me in to this filing? How is any of this civil?--Amadscientist (talk) 10:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no intention of furthering this discussion with you. I have apologized, you have not. This ANI needs to be resolved and really has nothing to do with either of us. Mugginsx (talk) 10:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

What do I need to aplogise for? Seriously. It ain't candy to be tossed to the crowd. You bring me up to make accusations and then tell me "I have no intention of furthering this discussion with you" and "This ANI needs to be resolved and really has nothing to do with either of us."

It does now. Explain yourself please.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Request for Uninvolved Administrator to close. After reading all of the noticeboards, talk page discussions, etc., on this subject up to and including the most recent comments from both Gaba p and Langus txt, it seems clear that neither is going to stop harassing Wee. They both have prior negative history with Wee and it is obvious that in their view this is pay-back time. My review of especially User:Gaba p's edits show edits on only two of the Falklands article and those edits are extremely minimal and specifically designed to attack and frustrate Wee's edits, showing no real desire to improve the articles. Many times User:Langus-TxT is backing him up. I do not believe Gaba p has any real interest in the Falklands articles, truth be told. I therefore once again propose an interactive ban or article ban among some or all of them. I hope some uninvolved administrator will see this farce for what it is and propose this solution. I believe it is the only way. Wikipedia:Banning policy Article, topic, or editor interaction was created for JUST THIS SITUATION. Let's put this problem to sleep once and for all. To propose yet another format or noticeboard would probably be another waste of time and will NOT work. It will not work because there is no good-faith on the part of the tag team. Once again, I believe it is time for the non-involved administrator to take this action and I sincerely hope he does so. Mugginsx (talk) 10:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

No so fast...

Several accusations have been made by User:Mugginsx. Before this AN/I can be closed a few things need to be cleared up.

First - Who is User:Mugginsx accusing of tag teaming and forum shopping?

Second - Why am I being dragged into this?

Third - Exactly why is User:Mugginsx so interested in handing out topic bans to everyone over this dispute? Has there been any conduct issues that are deserving of such and has User:Mugginsx been party to any of them? --Amadscientist (talk) 11:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe, it was I who proposed a voluntary interaction ban and suggested Gaba p voluntary restrict himself to topics away from those for which they obviously hold strong opinions. The original proposal is buried in the walls of text above. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I love voluntary interaction bans. That is a show of some sort of cooperation if stuck to. I also think it is very civil of you to suggest voluntary bans from the editors instead of asking for community sanctions. I think they should consider it. Odd that User:Mugginsx seems to want more and has also decided to make accusations of further conduct issues. I would suggest kicking this back to the talkpage as a non issue but there is an issue. Editors should not be making other's experiance on Wikipedia so difficult. The fun is gone and the purpose lost. I am going to beg...PLEASE STOP ALL OF THIS! There has to be a middle ground to the content dispute and if it too late...everyone to their own corners and stop interacting...own your own, before admin just drops the hammer on all....and I hope I am not being pushed under that hammer.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist and WeeCurryMonster: In my observation, voluntary bans can work, unfortunately Wee is the only editor to agree. I have thoroughly read the history or histories of this dispute on EVERY page, [Talk Pages], User Talk Pages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/|Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_132 and this Dispute Resolution, [[153], this ANI, the prior negative interactions with Wee, and your comments on your talk page. Within the articles themselves, I have studied the edits and the NATURE of the edits. I have detailed those edits and efforts above. It is clear as I said to the Uninvolved Administrator in the close request that this was a Tag-Teaming effort from two editors who have a clear negative past history with Wee. You are free to disagree but the edits show the truth. I agree that Wee has been outstanding in his efforts to try to solve this but the other involved editors have rejected that order in no uncertain terms, see above and repeated elsewhere here, making Wee's positive efforts to no such avail. The allegations are repeated, the defense is repeated. This has now gone to several noticeboards and discussion areas. Even Reliable Sources Noticeboard has defended Wees sources. It was ignored there and here. It has now become a vicious cycle. Your effort to take to the Committee, which if you will read above, I termed a A well intended suggestion, will not work because there is no enforcement opportunity to stop the tag teaming. That is why we have this ANI and where it should be settled. I will repeat my request for a close but because Wee has outlined a voluntary request (which I repeat has been refused by the tag-tem), I will, in deference to Wee, and since he is the only editor to continually cooperate with the effort to solve this with voluntary sanctions, add to my close request "or voluntary sanctions" and again I applaud both Wee an you for your good-faith efforts. Mugginsx (talk) 12:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

So...why am I here again? Why did you drag my comments and the DR/N to this location and accuse me of trying to void the AN/I? How exactly is your conduct here NOT disruptive. Sorry, but I do think Wee has been outstanding in many ways but this is not something I can say about you. In my opinion you may need to be "discouraged" from further behavior.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Asked thrice and answered twice. Again, this is about the involved editors, not you and not me. Mugginsx (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Then remove the accusations you made and my posts that are not related. YOU dragged me here....remember?--Amadscientist (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

If I may interject. I believe Mugginsx made a genuine attempt to mediate and bring discussions on track but received a rather unpleasant response. Further from comments at Ben MacDui's page, I believe Muggins is a lady but Gaba has repeatedly referred to her in the masculine gender, has continued to do so after being corrected by Mr MacDui and made a number of remarks that Muggins found patronising and sexist. Hence, I can see where her comments about Gaba playing games come from. I don't think it was her intention to involve yourself but equally I can perceive how she might feel your comments were to derail her closure suggestion. If I may suggest the best way to resolve this, is for everyone to chalk this up to a misunderstanding and for that accusation to be struckthrough. As I see it you both have the interests of the project in mind but each has a different approach. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist please go read the comment of mine Muggins found sexist, she (as per Wee's advice I'll be referring to Muggins as she from now on even though I have no confirmation that she is female), even called me sleezy[154]. It's quite bizarre how someone can misinterpret a comment so much (something I consulted with Ben, who agreed[155]). Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist Muggins came out of nowhere to attack me and Langus. Really, out of nowhere. He was not involved in any of the discussions and his first interaction was an attack/threat left in my talk page[156]. I'm still trying to figure out why is he so eager to see everybody but Wee blocked.

With respect to Wee's proposal, I think you might have missed a couple of implications. Regarding his 1st point, an interaction ban does not imply an editor should not edit anymore in an article, it just prevents interaction. Of course Wee knows this, but he seeks to ban both me and Langus from editing completely in any article related to the Falklands since he is actually active in all of them. This is made even more clear by his 4th point which directly asks for a full ban for me in every article related to the Falklands (!); which is just outrageous given that it was him who broke the 3RR and never owned up to it (something he has done before).

His strong opinions in the issue are of common knowledge and at this point I don't think I even need to provide links to prove this. He will not end a discussion until he gets his way, even if, as was the case with the edit that started all this, three editors agreed upon it. If he's not on board with an edit then "you have no consensus" so his word is apparently the final word. Wee's "proposal" is just his way of seeking to move out of the way the only two editors who will go through the trouble of refuting his endless WP:OR and WP:SYN (as several editors indicated) and deal with his WP:OWN attitude trying to treat WP as if it were his own blog.

If the terms are equal, then I fully agree with an interaction ban between me and Wee. I'll note however that, had it been a new editor who behaved like Wee did, he would have been blocked immediately. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 14:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

::*Amended Request for Uninvolved Administrator to close. After reading all of the noticeboards, talk page discussions, etc., on this subject up to and including the most recent comments from both Gaba p and Langus txt, it seems clear that neither is going to stop harassing editor WeeCurryMonster. They both have a prior negative history with Wee and it is obvious that in their view this is pay-back time and Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEYOU. My review of especially User:Gaba p's edits show edits on only two of the Falklands article and those edits are extremely minimal and specifically designed to attack and frustrate Wee's edits, showing no real desire to improve the articles. Many times User:Langus-TxT is backing him up. I do not believe Gaba p has any real interest in the Falklands articles, truth be told. Several attempts to compromise by Wee have been rejected except for the recent offer above by Gaba p. I therefore once again propose either a voluntary or involuntary interactive ban or article ban among them. I hope some uninvolved administrator will see this farce for what it is and propose this solution. I believe it is the only way. Wikipedia:Banning policy Article, topic, or editor interaction was created for JUST THIS SITUATION. Let's put this problem to sleep once and for all. To propose yet another format or noticeboard is Forum Shopping, is useless, is a waste of time and will NOT work. It will not work because there is no good-faith on the part of the tag team. Once again, I believe it is time for the non-involved administrator to take this action and I sincerely hope he does so. The links are provided above and will be provided again by your request. Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

May I request that my real life identity is struck from Gaba's comments please and erased from the page history. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Time to close this dramafest

I remain open to the voluntary interaction ban and mentorship/counselling proposal that I made. I would ask people to note I haven't requested any sanction against anyone and hope Gaba is able to contribute constructively in his claimed area of expertise of Astronomy. For the record, I have strong opinions about following NPOV (I believe my editing record speaks for itself, that is all. Time to close this isn't it, all it takes is a little good will. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

You haven't asked for a sanction? Wee, not a day ago you asked that I be banned for a full year from any topic related to the Falklands (!) in an issue that came to ANI after you broke the 3RR. Your proposal is nothing but an attempt at side-tracking this and shifting the blame on others. You still won't acknowledge breaking the 3RR even though the history of your edits was presented here and it's not subject to interpretations since it is what you actually did. You still won't acknowledge two editors (not counting me and Langus) advised you to stop the WP:OR and WP:SYN. You still won't acknowledge that you reverted 3 times an edit agreed upon by 3 editors. Your strong opinions are related to the Falklands issue, not about following NPOV; this is abundantly clear.

As I said, I have no problems with a fair mutual interaction block between you and me (and letting you off the hook for breaking the 3RR) I do note once again though, that had it been a new editor who behaved like you did, it will be now blocked for at least 48hs. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I have already apologized for any misimpression I may have given that User:Amadscientist was forum shopping. That was never my intent. In fact, upon first read, I referred to his intention to take this matter to the committee as A well intended suggestion. In accordance with that I meant to cross out the corresponding text but was called on an errand and forgot to do so. I am doing so now. Mugginsx (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, I now endorse WeeCurryMonster's proposal for voluntary solutions to the problems among Wee, Gaba p and Langus txt if they can work them out peaceably rather than to imposed sanctions. Hopefully they can come to terms and edit without conflict, which would also encourage other good faith editors to contribute to these articles should they want to. Mugginsx (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

A voluntary interaction ban imposed by one's self does not mean you can't edit an article that the other user works on.....it just means you can't discuss any problems you percieve with them on the talkpage, in edit summary or by e-mail. You simply cannot interact. It doesn't mean you can't object to an edit by discussing THE EDIT and the content, but really guys and gals this is just about not getting along. There are tons of editors that can't stand me. So what. As long as they don't discuss me at all I am fine. Its this back and forth that is the real issue here. The DR/N was just a content dispute. AN/I is about conduct and on this board about an incident itself. I'm not clear what the incident was here. Seriously. At this point there almost seems to be no reason to keep pointing at each other and bringing up requests for bans and blocks if there is no reason to ban or block. I kinda think if there was...admin would have done it by now. Sometimes admin will close threads they deem innapropriate. Some time they will remove them entirely (looks like they took Jimbos An/I for OR out) and sometimes they will give us the time to dig as deep a hole as we can. This is just making people look a certain way to editors who are reading this.

Topic bans seem innappropriate to me at this time and I would hope others agree, but I do think it is reasonable for WCM to request editors refrain from further contact with him on his talkpage, the article talk page and in summary. Just leave him alone and they, in turn will submit to the same voluntary interaction ban and leave you alone. Eventually, in time...things cool down and people get over things and return to civil discourse.......and sometimes they don't. This isn't a perfect world, but we don't need a perfect world to just stay away from each other and I don't think it is an unreasonable request.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I am often very pressed for time during the week. I intend to return here at the weekend with the aim of proceeding to a close. Ben MacDui 08:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Minor linkspam for "globaltrainingcenter.com".

• globaltrainingcenter.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.globaltrainingcenter.com

99.184.179.115 (talk · contribs) has inserted links to "globaltrainingcenter.com" into 5 articles. No other edits from this IP. Reverted, first spam warning given, AN/I notice. No other mentions of that domain in Wikipedia. Appears to be unrelated to previous problems at Letter of credit. Another day, another link spammer. --John Nagle (talk) 06:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

There are two other mentions of that domain on Wikipedia, but none of them are in articlespace. - SudoGhost 06:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Minor linkspam for "globaltrainingcenter.com".

• globaltrainingcenter.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.globaltrainingcenter.com

99.184.179.115 (talk · contribs) has inserted links to "globaltrainingcenter.com" into 5 articles. No other edits from this IP. Reverted, first spam warning given, AN/I notice. No other mentions of that domain in Wikipedia. Appears to be unrelated to previous problems at Letter of credit. Another day, another link spammer. --John Nagle (talk) 06:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

There are two other mentions of that domain on Wikipedia, but none of them are in articlespace. - SudoGhost 06:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

189.148.186.149

Blocked and RevDel for harassing and outing attempts, for a reg'ed user and a couple IPs. Without comment on the merits of any discussion, these methods are not acceptable at Wikipedia. Blanking for privacy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Blocked IP Abusing Talk Page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Just thought I would let you know that User:82.203.3.12 was blocked for six months in June 2012 and just altered the words of old warnings to inappropriate words and switching some of the exclamation icons and whatnot to pictures of Hitler with these edits. SassyLilNugget (talk) 11:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Given the IP's history and the block log, I've extended the block to a year (from now) and revoked talkpage access. Thanks for letting us know. Acroterion (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Conduct of IndianBio

I recently came across User:IndianBio at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of awards and nominations received by Madhuri Dixit/archive1. This user has been constantly harassing me; removes my comments from the peer review page. With an editing experience of barely one month, he doesn't seem to be relatively new to the community. I'm not trying to accuse him of sockpuppetry though. He has gone a step ahead and made a personal attack on my talk page. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 12:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that it's more of a civility issue than a blatant personal attack. To avoid biting him, I think that it would be best if he was issued a personal (rather than templated) warning explaining why his actions are inappropriate (besides for the incivility) rather than blocking him. Electric Catfish (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think he'll respond, if I issue any warning. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Death threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I may be misreading this semi-coherent post, but an IP appears to be suggesting that my throat should be cut for my edits (though has me confused with Abdul Samay Hamed?). [157] So far as I can tell, this appears to be for typo-fixing I did to the Hamilton, Alabama article nine months ago.[158] Luckily, unlike most IP threateners, this one helpfully left a phone number and e-mail address.[159] Anyone care to give him/her a call? I'm going to pass. Khazar2 (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Obvious threat, blatant racism, and personal attacks all evident in those diffs. --Activism1234 01:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Digging into this a little more, the IP appears to have previously inserted some information to the article as User:Jbrown33252 [160] that was removed as original research, and is now threatening the wrong person. Khazar2 (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, well this should probably be reported to emergency@wikimedia.org as a death threat... The editor should definitely be immediately blocked. Not sure what else can be done. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Link 126 is the worst incident of them all. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hardblocked, no talk page access. Emailed foundation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all. Khazar2 (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

To follow up, they emailed back within a minute or two, and they are investigating. Likely, we are done here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Re-opening this one, as the IP is continuing his belligerent behavior at the account mentioned above.[161] Could this account be blocked as well? Thanks all, Khazar2 (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Was about to say the same thing. The account should be blocked per WP:NLT at a minimum. Nil Einne (talk) 03:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I am giving him a stern warning as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, my... I might have spoke too soon. It looks like Bongwarrior (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has now blocked the user indefinitely. Also, I think the IP has abused multiple accounts as well. Sockpuppetry and legal threats have not, will not, and should not be tolerated. To quote William Shakespeare, "the first thing we do is to kill all the lawyers." With that said, I think we are done here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

BTW I requested suppression of the edit containing the phone number, I believe this is the norm since we have no way of knowing the number really belongs to the IP. I know it's normally better not to note this here, but since it was already mentioned above, I'm mentioning it to avoid duplicate requests. Nil Einne (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Now, now, Sjones, just because Shakespeare could make death threats against lawyers doesn't mean that you should approve of them. After all, I don't know the statistics, but there are a fair number of Wikipedians who are lawyers. Besides, if you killed all the lawyers, who would defend you in your criminal case? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh... I see. Since we have a fair number of Wikipedians who are lawyers, it was really unnecessary on my part to mention Shakespeare making death threats. If we killed all the lawyers, there would be nothing to defend anyone in a criminal case. Death threats and legal threats will not, have not and should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. For that, I apologize and also, no personal attacks towards anyone were intended. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

M'lord Jones, the case law on point is, I believe, Tuberville v Savage [1669] EWHC KB J25. Oh yes, and it's "the first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" (2 Hen VI Act IV, scene ii, line 44) (says he, neatly fitting a stereotype.) --Shirt58 (talk) 08:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

We can't all be Dick the Butcher. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I updated the Foundation with the user info, connecting the IP to the reg'ed editor. I'm not expecting any action per se, just filling in the forms... Now we are probably done here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continued legal threats on User talk:Ajovitsky

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Per this diff, an admin may want to consider revoking talk page access for this blocked user. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Also, their unblock request reason is incorrectly placed, but I'll let that user figure that out on their own. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I have reblocked this editor indefinitely on the basis of disruptive editing and removed his ability to edit his user and talk pages. There is a minor copyright violation involving a letter written by an employee of the State of California which is not, in itself, an adequate basis for a block. However justified this user's complaints may be regarding the issues which he has raised in his editing here, Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum for them. Other venues should be used. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A vandal account?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I was tracking down the history of an odd edit, and stumbled across this IP account: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/99.253.24.182 He's made a lot of edits, mainly associated with Italian organized crime figures. Most of them include obscure family and background information, which is unsourced and may not be capable of verification. At least one series of edits (Ray's Pizza in August, 2010) were the subject of reversion by another editor tied to a claim of falsity. I'm wondering if someone created this account out of a bizarre desire to slip in bogus "facts" that would largely remain unnoticed in perpetuity. Not trying to create problems... just to protect the integrity of the system. John2510 (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not a vandalism-only account because it's an IP, not an account. Vandalism should be reported to WP: AIV. It doesn't seem problematic at the moment since it hasn't edited for over a year. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

While there hasn't been activity from that IP in a while, the many (presumably bogus) edits are likely to remain forever if not reverted.John2510 (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Looks like this IP dropped off about the time that puppetmaster and organized crime original researcher User:King Genovese started up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threats from IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

70.73.132.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made a legal threat on my user page, following reverts I did to their (largely spammy) edits to Consumers Distributing. I've already placed the {uw-legal} tag on their talk page and an admin has given a final warning against spamming, so I'm not sure a block is merited without more edits. But I fully expect more edits... Hairhorn (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked one month. The block can be retracted once the IP retracts the statements. And it'd probably be a good idea for the IP to respond to the warnings on their talk also before lifting the block. – Connormah (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The IP repeated their legal threat. Their Talk page access should probably be revoked. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the note. – Connormah (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Interesting IP Post

I just noticed the creation of User talk:65.28.248.135 with an interesting post about asking to confirm other usernames and looking them up, they come up as blocked sockpuppets (The case is here). Figured to bring it here since I don't know what to make of it. SassyLilNugget (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

And I am dumb, because I didn't read further. <facepalm> SassyLilNugget (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Is anybody else seeing five blank entries in his contribution history? Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Uhh, yeah. That's really weird. -Scottywong| confer _ 21:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Could those be oversighted edits? – Connormah (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Oversighted edits shouldn't show up at all unless you have the oversight tool. Most odd. (Added - I do have the oversight tool, and these aren't oversighted edits. Someone want to flag this on Village pump technical? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done Nobody Ent 22:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• They were double secret oversighted; Elen's permissions don't go that high. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Promotional email for "wiki-pr.com"

• wiki-pr.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• Google Analytics ID: UA-34239097 - (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • Meta: Track - Report)

This isn't quite an AN/I issue, but it needs to be reported. I just received the following email. Since this was sent to me as an email spam, not through Wikipedia, I'm not censoring any of the ID information.

From: Daniel Zak

Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 22:03:17 +0100

Subject: SiteTruth... on Wikipedia?

To: info@animats.com

Hi SiteTruth Team,

Shouldn't SiteTruth have a full-length, professional page on Wikipedia? Wiki-PR.com creates full-length, professional Wikipedia pages. We have software tools to manage your page in real-time.

Would you like more information? Please reply by email or provide your contact number. It will be worthwhile. A full-length, professionally written Wikipedia page will drive sales and inform your clients about what you do best.

Your competitors are getting on Wikipedia. Shouldn't you be on Wikipedia, too?

Best,

Thanks, Daniel

Wiki-PR.com

Daniel Zak

Senior Account Manager

Wiki-PR wiki-pr.com

We Write It. We Manage It.

You Never Worry About Wikipedia Again.

Someone needs to apply a large hammer to this outfit. If they're sending out spam like this, how much damage have they already done? --John Nagle (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I especially like 'page management' [162]. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm One of their staff is none other than the banned MooshiePorkFace (talk · contribs). Great. Doc talk 22:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I personally know of at least 100 socks related to this group. Not all of them are actually linked in the public records here, or are archived as multiple sockmasters, even though they all point to this one organization. I would guess we have caught fewer than 10% of the actual socks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

@Dennis: I know that you are one of the most careful and deliberative of our admin corps, but this seems as if it would be an instance where WP:IAR could be invoked without rebuke. Perhaps you should block the 100 socks? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I should have worded it better. The socks I know are blocked, under different puppetmasters, but not formally linked. The other 900 we haven't found. They tend to create an account, add the article, then don't use the account again. Some of the articles pass the grade but over half don't. None are great. There is actually a lot of politics involved as well, which I can't really explain, but it doesn't help. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I just can't believe they found that guy to be on their staff (or he found them). It's nauseating that this shill touts himself as a WP "expert for hire". Doc talk 12:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

"We are winning this". Tijfo098 (talk) 07:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

A list of known socks related to this might be helpful. Then the edits of those socks can be scrutinized closely. This is a pain. It takes a lot of work to put a neutral point of view on happy-talk articles created by PR organizations. --John Nagle (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Apply WP:TNT? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Won't help. It's not a single article problem. The task is to find articles planted by a PR organization. This is a tougher task than it used to be. Company hype articles used to be cut and pasted from company PR materials, and were sometimes detected by the copyvio 'bot. Now, we have "professionally written" Wikipedia hype articles. These superficially look good, but are typically PR puff pieces which omit any negatives. They often have WP:RS reliable sources, but the sources turn out to be press releases that were run through some lesser news outlet to reappear as news. When you see an article that looks like PR, it's useful to run the company name through a search engine and see what pops up. If there's negative info from a major news outlet that isn't in the article, there's a good chance it's a PR piece. If you put in said negative info and an SPA or anon deletes it quickly, that's a stronger indication. --John Nagle (talk) 19:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

"There is actually a lot of politics involved as well, which I can't really explain, but it doesn't help." WP keeps personal information private, but politics? Politics need airing. What's the story? Bielle (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You would be surprised at how much is kept private, and often for good (or at least legal) reasons. And keep in mind that personal and political might be the the same thing, or so intertwined as to make them indistinguishable, or at least inseparable. I actually don't have a problem with company's charging clients to create WP articles in theory, and if they disclosed the COI and wouldn't sock, it would be a lot less work. However, they get paid after it stays there awhile (I have no idea, I would guess a month), so if we don't catch it before they get paid, there is no incentive for them to work with us. Instead, these organizations are parasites that cause us a lot of extra work and frustration. This is why we need to find a way to reward COI that is honest and discloses by being understanding and patient. And figure out better methods to hammer ban those that are dishonest, sock and lie. Eventually, we may be forced to make it harder to create new articles. New page patrol simply isn't catching these thin, garbage sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Making article creation harder has been tried (requiring autoconfirmed status); WMF said "Phil will be scooping snowcones with his spoon before that happens". Unfortunatly, while the ideals of "anyone can edit (signed in or not)" and "anyone who can edit can create an article" are, well, ideal, those who work where the crap gets turned into crap golems get disabused of those ideals in a hurry - but those who uphold the ideals are, alas, not those doing the shoveling. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

There are more of this kind here, like User:Cla68 "This editor is interested in paid editing opportunities.". --Trofobi (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

"You would be surprised at how much is kept private, and often for good (or at least legal) reasons. And keep in mind that personal and political might be the the same thing, or so intertwined as to make them indistinguishable, or at least inseparable." Dennis, that is pure bafflegab, and I expect better from you, even in this silly season. "900 socks" (to quote you) are a "political problem" you can't discuss? Sorry, but I have quite an imagination and I cannot come up with any possible scenario that fits this, unless you are saying that the socks are WMF approved or being run by some protected inner circle. Bielle (talk) 04:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Outfits like this are going to pop up. I've asked WilliamH (talk · contribs) to note this thread, as he worked the Mooshie case extensively. He seems to be on a wikibreak and may not respond, but if any other admins remember this case/looked at the CU data, hopefully they can offer some advice. I see the situation as hopeless when all the details of the orders for articles are conducted in private. It's interesting that WP is so widely used that this stuff happens. Doc talk 05:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

WilliamH temporarily handed in all his bits due to real world obligations and a change of location. Hopefully, he will be back full time in a year or so. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we need a BOT to maintain a list of articles created by an SPA so we can incorporate patrols and periodic reviews of articles likely created in this fashion. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 07:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that MooshiePorkFace and the originator of that email are different people. However, now that I have a name, there are a few socks I have for the email sender - I don't believe they are Mooshie's though. In this case the problem is that they are throwaway accounts - by the time we spot and block them, the article is already created and they've been paid, and the accounts have never been used a second time. So playing whack-a-sock isn't likely to do a great deal beyond prevent future use of the accounts, which was unlikely to happen anyway. If we reach a point where something stronger needs to be tried, maybe a ban would be more effective. - Bilby (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Whack-a-sock will not work, but identifying the editors, and categorically delete the articles (even if it is valid content, it can be re-created independently from scratch) will show that their money is going to waste. For that, one would still need to identify their socks. A similar case regarding a lot of semi-automated clickbank-spam also had a peak, and then it flattened out because too many people did not get their links on Wikipedia. Matter of detecting and deleting it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

With greatest respect to Dirk and the other contributors to this discussion, you should see what goes on with new pages. Throwaway accounts create valid articles about people and businesses, and then never edit again. And we much-criticized (and in many cases validly criticized) WP:NPP cowboys and cowgals can do nothing at all.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

And that is what I have a problem with - if they were declared editors all would be fine. Now we end up 'encouraging' promotional editing, which inevitably will also lead to articles that are promotional/spammy in language (besides good ones). But I understand the problem - how to identify, and do we really need to delete good material. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a victim of its own success.. but when did "Wikipedia, the hugely popular online encyclopedia that anyone can edit" become "Wikipedia, the hugely popular online encyclopedia that anyone can edit as long as the community allows them to"? It's all well and good claiming "anyone", but we already block a shit-load of public access IPs, libraries, etc all in the name of "preventing socking and vandalism", but it's pretty much like setting a curfew in the local high street, and arresting everyone who breaks it, for the few who meant it was necessary in the first place. Editor retention is so lousy at the moment, and public opinion of Wikipedia can be so demeaning, one wonders how long it will be before it can no longer sustain itself, as editors and donations hit rock bottom? How do we define a "legitimate editor"? COI is a reasonable thing to except in some cases, and third-parties editing on behalf of businesses simply need to be aware of the WP:NOTDIRECTORY policy.. instead of it being a per article policy, it should be expanded to cover businesses, unless notability can be reasonably established and with a world-view. As for being paid to edit.. I think there's a major difference between someone being paid to create a good public image article, and someone who is asked to spend hours researching a genuine topic, and creating a balanced article. That kind of academic editing cannot be dismissed as COI, even if the editor is getting paid for it, some people have principles and cannot be judged under a blanket-policy. Companies such as this wiki-pr are clearly marketing themselves to maintain an article with a biased outlook. How they intend to maintain such articles without reverting other editors and war-editing until they are blocked is the question, but there's no doubt that those who care more about income than respecting the ethics of Wiki should not be permitted to run their business here, making money that becomes disruptive for editors/admins who don't makes a penny is unacceptable and scrounging. Whereas someone paid to write a neutral article, but not necessarily be asked to maintain it beyond what is within Wiki policy, should be respected as long as they remain within the tolerances of policy, have articles peer-reviewed and wikiproject-assessed to reduce chances of COI/POV content, and don't engage in ownership behaviour, etc. Question is, how do you ask editors to be more open to accepting cash for their honest time as researchers/writers of valid material, and how do you stop or limit PR businesses from trying to take advantage of the system, without consideration for everyone but their undisclosed clients? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 14:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I see "the online encyclopedia that anyone can read" and "that anyone would bother to read" as even more important than "anyone can edit". Andy Dingley (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

"that anyone would bother to read" – I suppose that's one of the issues. I lot of schools/colleges/unis are telling their students not to use or rely on Wiki, which makes you wonder why we bother trying to create an encyclopedia if academic establishments are first to reject it.. leaving it to become an household name, for people to lookup things without taking time to read lengthy FA/GA articles as a student would. Granted, pro researches won't use Wiki in most cases, but it never hurts to wonder if they "compare notes", or is that "why bother?" attitude spreading? If so, who is to blame and how do we weed them out? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 14:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is indeed actively discouraged as a source by many learning institutions (though there is a slow warming trend). But do you know why that is? It's precisely because anyone can edit it. Teachers and professors inherently distrust Wikipedia because they see a source that is open for editing by the general public, which sets off alarm bells: "Anyone can edit? Who knows what sort of rubbish in there if just any schmoe can mess around with the content!" Therein lies the paradox: it is the fact we advocate "editor retention"—because we are encourage every Tom, Dick, and Jane as well as every WP:Randy from Boise to join in the fun—that we are perceived as having "low standards" and are shunned by many reputable academic institutions. Don't get me wrong—much good can come of editor retention. But all too often (and more often as of late), I see "editor retention" and thrown around as arguments against booting out new users that are clearly here to disruptively push a [insert pet cause/organisation here]. The mentality that because a user is new, we must automatically let them walk all over us is toxic to the project.

And on the flipside, real experts are often discouraged from editing here because they often view their "colleagues" as have been thusly "retained" as being ignorant amateurs. If they do join, they'd better hide their identity and/or credentials or else run the risk of A) general, sneaking mistrust (à la Essjay) or B) getting dragged to WP:COIN because their Wikipedia editing coincides too closely with their research involvements for some people. (And, yes, some are indeed bitten away because of poor editor retention—these things can get rather tangled). Some of the fundamental problems with the project's "professional image" hinge directly upon the way we try to balance cultivating an active editing community with maintaining a community that can show itself to be presentable to the outside world. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to get caught up on this, as it is a bit too much of a tangent, but I'm seeing a lot more lecturers at university level encouraging the use of Wikipedia as a starting point. It isn't going to replace academic journals and textbooks, but it isn't quite as discouraged as believed. And I also no a number of academics who tell me that they use Wikipedia as a starting point for research, or use it in the development of their lectures. The role of Wikipedia isn't the same as that of peer-reviewed sources, but it still has a role. If, however, the neutrality of the content changes too much, then this could well affect the level of trust. - Bilby (talk) 00:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Donations are in no danger of hitting rock bottom. At all. The following table is compiled from the "Statements of Activities" (ending 30 June) in the Financial Reports available here.

Year	Total Support and Revenue	Total Expenses	Increase in Net Assets	Net Assets at End of Year
2003/2004	$80,129	$23,463	$56,666	$56,666
2004/2005	$379,088	$177,670	$211,418	$268,084
2005/2006	$1,508,039	$791,907	$736,132	$1,004,216
2006/2007	$2,734,909	$2,077,843	$654,066	$1,658,282
2007/2008	$5,032,981	$3,540,724	$3,519,886	$5,178,168
2008/2009	$8,658,006	$5,617,236	$3,053,599	$8,231,767
2009/2010	$17,979,312	$10,266,793	$6,310,964	$14,542,731
2010/2011	$24,785,092	$17,889,794	$9,649,413	$24,192,144
2011/2012	$34,800,000 (prelim.)	$28,300,000 (prelim.)	$6,500,000 (estim.)	$30,700,000 (estim.)

Financially, the Foundation is on the up and up, with reserves of $30m. JN466 16:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, donations may be up.. editor numbers are not.. everything has a life cycle and Wiki is still a "product" at the end of the day. Big corps could pile millions into Wiki.. doesn't mean people have to edit it though. The two go hand in hand. We've all see the stats in the papers http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2174773/Will-Wikipedia-edit-existence-From-50-volunteer-admins-site-month-just-one.html Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 16:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

To get back on topic, let me suggest something that might work. Most paid PR articles will be about either companies or products. We need some way to generate a list of new articles about those subjects. That's a small fraction of new articles; the bulk of new articles are about obscure places and entertainments. Can one of the 'bots be modified to do that?

New articles about businesses should be evaluated per WP:CORP ("An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.") News articles which appear to be the result of PR efforts should not be considered independent sources. Put a "prod" on marginal articles, and see who, if anyone, deletes the "prod". Send the questionable cases to AfD as "advertising". --John Nagle (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Given that this thread had developed from who and what PR editors are, to "what to do about it", I imagine it no longer becomes an AN/I issue.. in fact I doubt it ever was, given that there is no action to be taken against any one person.. would it not be best discussed at the WP:Village pump for all editors to discuss? There's little to no chance of new policy being implement here without it going via the proper channels, anyway. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 17:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

ActiveAdmins 18-06-2012

Sure ... editors and admins in particular (see graph to the right) are down. --JN466 20:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a note about the graph...It seemed a little misleading before, so I just changed it on commons. The previous version had the lower limit of the y-axis at 600, so it showed admin numbers plunging into the ground. I switched that to zero, as well as updating the stats through September. It was a bold edit, and I'm not sure if the change will "stick", but I figured I'd leave a note here since this seems to be an active discussion. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of how you monkey with the axis, the key is that the graph is a straight line heading right for zero. It has no curvature or convexity which would suggest that the downward trend is likely to stabilize at some lower threshold. Volunteer Marek  04:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Please don't do that. Changing the axes is a fundamental change to the image and should be uploaded to a new file. (And there is no reason to include a zero on the axis anyway.) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there is a very good reason to include zero on the y axis. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

ActiveAdmins 25-09-2012 (y-scale not truncated)

I've taken your advice and uploaded it as a new file. Here it is. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Honestly? I don't see "editor numbers going down" as the Chicken Little scenario so many paint it as. For a very simple reason: Wikipedia has matured as a project. Yes, there's a lot of topics still not covered, and many more that need better coverage, but it's still a fact that "logging in to edit because I want to write an article on X, which doesn't exist yet" doesn't happen very often anymore because there's a very good chance there already is an article on X. A permament, interminable state of constant growth is an impossibility; maintiance is more the thing now. Which means those here strictly to grow will drift away. It happens. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't buy that, it's the same spin the WMF have been giving about dwindling numbers. Anyone searching for an article is more likely to come across a low-quality Stub or Start article, based on WP:1.0 table of assessments, about 2⁄3 to 3⁄4 of articles are undeveloped, and those are just the ones that are tagged and assessed, what about unassessed stubs, not to mention articles tagged as unref'd, poorly cited, one-source, potential COI, or with weight issues. Why should the lower editor numbers be blamed to "the article already exists", when there's just as much chance that although the article exists, it might as well not because it's so poor or immaterial? 4 million plus articles doesn't mean 4 million subjects covered, in reality it means about 500,000–1 million substantially covered, the rest barely scratch the surface to be taken seriously. If we weren't losing editors, then the number of stubs would be lessening as editors join to develop them. I don't see that they are. Wikipedia has matured as a project in terms of being a big website, but it's potential has far from matured if we consider how much content could be added to every low-class article. Would be like turning a 100 page kids book into 1,000 page college book. Seems like most people are interested in maintaining the high-class content than building on the low-class content, which is not progression, it's more like.. washing the windows of your house each week, so it always looks good, instead of building a conservatory or extension.. for want of a better analogy. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 00:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• S'cuse me, folks ... isn't this ANI here? I'm sure there must be some place to discuss the Foundation's finances, whether or not the number of editors is dwindling, whether there are too many stubs, etc ... that isn't a place wholly inappropriate for the same. Ravenswing 06:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Break

This is getting long... Back to the thing about Wiki-PR. So here, they're getting articles created for their clients, right? And they have to use an IP address, right? If we do a quick CHU and block their IPs, they can't edit. If it's dynamic, use short term blocks, if they start using proxies, block'm. I believe there was a similar incident a few years back with some paid editing company. I think that once the press got onto them, their reputation was ruined, and they stopped. If the same thing happens to them, we'll just leave them there in the dust. At least, that's what I think. Thoughts? Thekillerpenguin (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd guess the problem here would be getting a CU endorsement (and finding the users to do the CU on). But here's a crazy idea that would never work. Instead of waiting for the press to catch on and ruin their reputation, we could violate a dozen of our own policies and create the page Wiki-PR.com, ("Wiki-PR.com is a small online business that creates hundreds of illegitimate Wikipedia accounts to disruptively edit Wikipedia on behalf of paying clients.") You have to admit there would be some poetic justice to that...the way they talk on their webpage about how every small business should have a tailored Wikipedia page, and how they have a "professional staff of Wikipedia editors". Yeah, we'd violate, WP:N, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:N, WP:RS, and others, but it would be fun to see the socks come out of the woodwork. (Please note, I am joking here, but only half-way.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

It is worth checking for. But there has been a growing tendency in recent weeks (and probably predates that by a long way) for more successful but identified paid editors to subcontract, and this seems to be happening here. That limits the effectiveness of CU. - Bilby (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I hope that the people running this company aren't experienced users who know how to game the system.

They've posted their twitter account. If anyone here uses twitter, maybe we should post a little warning to any prospective clients. Something like what Adjwilley suggests. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

This article, happily linked from the Twitter account, should be required reading for anyone looking at this thread. Doc talk 07:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Add the planting of "moles" as clients to the devious plan - "What work have you done, so we know you're good? Oh, really?" - then squish the articles. What client wouldn't want to see the company's results before hiring them? Naturally, these could be mole accounts that are disposable. Doc talk 03:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, that might actually work. For transparency, if we use this plan, when we dispose of the moles, we should state who operated it, and explain why it was used. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 03:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The moles would be off-wiki accounts dealing with them and never need to be reported or identified here. We just need some operators to actually do it. Any volunteers? :> Doc talk 03:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: planting moles "What work have you done, so we know you're good?"...Not gonna work. [163]. They take privacy seriously, and there's no way they're going to say who they've serviced. (On the other hand, a determined reporter with a little knowledge of Wikipedia and some guidance could determine who their clients are by tracing their network of socks.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

They have to prove their results to their clients at some level: investing in a possibly obvious loser without any data to make your decision is foolish. They have to be extra careful about publishing their results due to their nefarious nature, but if they tell their clients in private correspondence, "We cannot present any of our past results to you, and you'll simply just have to trust us as we take your money." then we're all in deep trouble. Then again... ah, forget it. Doc talk 04:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

This might sound stupid, but I am assuming they edit via proxies to prevent a checkuser identifying them and that they also drop accounts when the work is done, but do we have a list of suspected or confirmed work? Then we just search for similar writing and manually cross-reference them with the sources and proceed accordingly? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

If they tend to create an account, add an article or make a series of changes and don't use the account again, one could develop software to identify automatically such accounts and link the corresponding IP addresses. Unless checkusers already have such tool... But this is hardly a viable solution because they will use collective accounts that would appear as a single legitimate user. My very best wishes (talk) 05:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I've got that list, and I'm slowly working through it, but the cross referencing is slow and not necessarily effective. My focus is also only on editors who break policies - at this point in time, we have no policy about paid editing as such, so my interest is with socks or other problematic activities, not paid editing itself. - Bilby (talk) 08:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) Once we catch on to at least some of their edits, we might be able to pinpoint who their past clients are. Then we can proceed with the tarring and feathering of the company. </half-baked joke> MyWikiBiz did something quite similar with similar reasoning, so like I said, if things go well, the media will snap them up with hungry jaws. Let's just hope that happens.

I think that for now, until we catch the sock network, we should just keep an eye out in the new pages feed. Yes, puff pieces can be hard to spot, but a little Google search and they don't hold up well. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Sock database

Dennis's post reminds me that I've been wishing we had some sort of way of classifying sock puppets by interest area. It would help in this instance, but also in some of the areas where we have a lot of pov editing. Dougweller (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I would also add, while I don't have full CU data, I'm aware of how to to put 2+2 together, enough to know that blocking IPs is almost fruitless. Between home IPs, webhosts (which are allowed here) and open proxies which pop up all the time, it is literally impossible to simply block all the IPs. Many of these articles look ok on the surface, so it passes through new page patrol because it looks good to the untrained eye. It looks like "an article with sources" when in fact it is not. Imagine an article about me, a non-notable person, but with links to the NY Times about "marketing" (my profession) and an LA times citation on North Carolina tourism (I live here) and other weakly related but not really related refs. That is what we are talking about. And they are smart enough to turn their user pages and talk pages into blue links, and I would bet use other accounts to patrol their own edits. If you want to really do something, patrol new articles including those already patrolled, dig a little deeper, look at the contribs of the editor, and if you see the first two edits are turning their user and talk page into blue links, well, you have a likely candidate. And maybe the first 14 or so edits are all marked minor spelling edits, then they turn 180 degrees and create a full blown article in one edit, complete with sources. No "real" new editor does those things. Finding them isn't complicated, but it takes an insane amount of footwork. Only by making them work harder can you make a difference. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's an example that I stumbled upon recently at the back of the new page patrol backlog. Micah Baldwin - a guy who probably is notable, since he's now CEO of a small company. He's one of those entrepreneurial you-can-do-anything types who maintains an inspirational blog and is active on Twitter. His article was created by a prolific sock who made only one edit to the article before being blocked. A couple weeks later a mysterious new user quadruples the size of the article in his first (and only) edit. The article itself looks fine at the surface. Every sentence is punctuated with at least one citation. But then you start looking at the sources. Over half of them are to the guys blog, while others are to his Twitter and Linkedin accounts. The ones that are to bigger magazines are about his company. Then you read the article and it's full of spin. But it's a fairly well-written article, so what do I do? I'm not interested enough in the guy to become an expert and rewrite the article myself. I'm not the type that likes blanking, and I try to be extra careful anyway when I'm working on BLPs. And both the socks who created the article are throwaway accounts. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused. Why can't we get a checkuser to look up the IP's that these accounts used to create the puff pieces, then use that get a list of all other registered accounts that have used those IP's, then use that to get a list of all articles created by those users, then delete any articles in that list that are promotional? This is clearly sockpuppetry, so I don't think this would fall under fishing. A coordinated campaign to delete promotional articles by abusive socks should provide some serious discouragement for them to continue doing what they're doing. -Scottywong| converse _ 22:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that creating and releasing a list of such potentially problematic articles could help. These pages should be reviewed by community. I saw numerous throwaway accounts that create or edit pages about marginally notable people and corporations (consider something like this for example). My very best wishes (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. We need to at least create a list of new company and product articles for review. --John Nagle (talk) 06:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

User:HauntologicalPhenomenon, an AfD SPA

Concerns have been raised by several editors that User:HauntologicalPhenomenon, who immediately after registration started participating in AfDs, and who appears highly focused on that area alone, may be a violation of WP:SOCK. The relevant section is "Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections." (emphasis mine) Tijfo098 (talk) 08:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

As a related event, I note here the recent block of User:KlickitatGlacier, another probably returning user who was blocked for making mostly Wikipedia-space contributions. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Any reason why this is at ANI as opposed to WP:SPI? GiantSnowman 08:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Because I don't know who the sock master might be (see AN discussion on KlickitatGlacier for comparison). HauntologicalPhenomenon is someone involved in the perennial battles surrounding Mass killings under Communist regimes because he made his first edit there. But that doesn't matter much. He is clearly not a new user. The impression that HauntologicalPhenomenon is used to avoid scrutiny while editing project space (and controversial articles) is what really matters here. It can be acted upon independently of whether we can identify the sockmaster or not. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I've launched an SPI before with an unknown master and the magicians over there were still able to confirm the new editor was a sock. GiantSnowman 09:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try that too. But even if it doesn't work out, an AfD SPA is not a good thing. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

After a second look, how do I do that? The instructions at SPI say nothing how to proceed in such cases... Can you link to the case you mentioned so I can use it as a template? Tijfo098 (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kthimi në Shqipëri/Archive. Just open an SPI in the name of HauntologicalPhenomenon, explain the situation, and request a CU. If he's found to be a sock of a known puppeteer (i.e. one with the SPI already open) we can simply merge the two. GiantSnowman 09:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I will do that. Also note possibly active deception by HauntologicalPhenomenon here, explicitly claiming to be "a new editor". Quite an improbable claim given that his 2nd edit was an elaborate argumentation quoting several Wikipedia policies [164]. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Use it as evidence. They may not be able to confirm the master but they'll be able to say he isn't new, in which case we can indef for block evasion. GiantSnowman 09:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! Mind if I ask how this is improbable exactly? The policy pages are both easy to navigate and clearly written, well-illustrated with examples. HauntologicalPhenomenon (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HauntologicalPhenomenon‎ opened. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
• Something else I'd like to mention: this issue was not raised with me at any point before bringing it here. I just noticed at the top of the page that it says "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." HauntologicalPhenomenon (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

SPI was closed as "fishing expedition". I was pretty sure it was going to be closed like that. Now what? Tijfo098 (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Self-determination

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It is clear that discussions about the Falkland Islands at Talk:Self-determination are spiralling out of control, despite the attempts of various parties to intervene. (See WP:RSN#Verification source citations is this WP:OR and WP:SYN and WP:DRN#Self-determination.) Heated discussion about sources and continued edit-warring are ongoing and I have now had to warn one of the editors involved for posting an uncivil message. For the record their reply is here. I fear this is heading for Arbitration unless things cool down and am requesting more eyes on this page. Ben MacDui 12:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

After looking at the edit-warring and signs of tendentiousness in the edits, I would suggest a block against at least Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs), who I believe has been the most stubborn and the most overtly tendentious of the lot; not quite sure yet about those on the other side. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree as a careful analysis of all of Gaba's contributions for the entire year seemed to be directed overwhelmingly at Wee's edits in the Falkland articles with Gaba being the aggressor in this case. Please see: [[165]]Mugginsx (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note the past conflict I've had with FPaS and from my knowledge this is the second occasion has proposed sanctions against me. My edits are sourced to reliable sources, giving due weight and the others aren't. I have addressed problems in the article, I've followed WP:DR steps and I've remained civil. I have very little faith in WP:ANI as too often I see posts like the above looking to settle old scores. Thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Any objection to Gaba p's edits is labelled by him as WP:OR and WP:SYN, as far as he's concerned that is sufficient for any discussion. In this case, insisting on using a source that made a demonstrably false claim. [166]

I point out that his edit is misleading, thats also WP:OR and WP:SYN. [167]

I point out an edit is contrary to WP:WEIGHT, thats also WP:OR and WP:SYN. [168]

I raised the matter in talk [169], I started the DRN [170], I started the RSN discussion [171]. On every occasion I have given a reasoned response to proposals, if Gaba p disagrees - its [[WP:OR], its WP:SYN, its a lie [172], its wikilawyering but he never actually discusses with an aim to reaching agreement. His approach is confrontational and antagonistic to anyone who disagrees [173],[174]. He has previously been warned about WP:CIVIL [175] and that he faced a block if he continued. Whilst its just been warnings from several admins but no action he has simply got bolder. User:Langus-TxT who in a RFC at Falkland Islands was warned for POV editing has previously backed up Gaba p in a WP:TAG team to try and force POV changes into articles. User:Langus-TxT did exactly the same with the now indefinitely blocked editor User:Alex79818 who stalked me in real life forcing a change of user name. When User:Gaba p started editing both User:Nick-D and User:JamesBWatson considered there was sufficient reason to consider User:Gaba p yet another sock puppet of the prolific sock puppeteer User:Alex79818. He was only unblocked after providing ID identification and I privately disclosed Alex's real life ID to James (I knew it from the stalking). After being the object of abuse from Gaba and Alex I remain convinced they're one and the same - the edit patterns are identical. And the edit patterns have the hallmark of a sleeper account, registered in 2009 [176] but no edits between 2010 and 2012 [177] and restarting editing immediately after another obvious sock was blocked. WP:DUCK.

You would find it difficult to find a posting where I have been uncivil, despite repeated provocation and I really don't think any editor should have to put up with this level of abuse. He's followed me all over wikipedia with the same attitude, I move on to improve another article and there he is. He'll make a whole host of allegations to muddy the waters and avoid sanctions again. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

First: I have no idea why Muginsx is attacking me so ferociously, he came out of nowhere a couple of weeks ago to threaten me in my talk page while as far as I can remember we had never crossed paths.

Wee was told by two other editors in addition to me and Langus in the RS/N that he was in fact engaging in WP:OR and WP:SYN in his attempts at removing a properly sourced sentence from an article. The sources I used are the ones directly recommended by those two editors at RS/N.

Yesterday Wee reverted 3 times and edit agreed upon by 3 different editors[178] (Langus, Churn and Change and myself)

A source which we were advised not to use by editors in the same RS/N discussion had to be removed on 3 occasions because Wee kept introducing it back to the article with every rv he made.

I tried several times to come to an agreement with Wee but he is hell-bent on keeping a properly sourced sentence out of WP and there is no middle ground: no matter what sources I or other editors present, he will immediately embark in a crusade to discredit it ("it's an Argentinian source", "it's ambiguous in its claims", "its contradicted by other sources") all based on his own WP:OR.

Wee had me blocked earlier this year accused of being a sock puppet. To this day Wee keeps accusing me of being the same person as Axel after I revealed my true identity to a WP administrator who ended up lifting the life-ban that had been imposed to my account. What else can I possibly do?? I've created two scientific articles about a topic that was missing from WP (Thin disk and Thick disk) and have two more in the same area in the making[179] Nothing will convince him that me and Axel are not the same person and he will keep attacking me on that grounds.

Let me try to put this as simple as I can. This is the sentence Wee is determined to keep out of WP and which sparkled this whole mess:

"Other authors state that the Argentine inhabitants were in fact expelled by the British."

The first source was advised to both of us to be used at the RS/N discussion (anybody can go and check this). The second source says verbatim: "The newly independent state of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata (Argentina) occupied the Islands in 1816, began their settlement in 1820, established a political and military command there in 1829, but was expelled by Britain in 1833.". Wee contests this source saying that "The comment here is just moving the goalposts"[180]. The third one is an article by an author who was also recommended at the RS/N as a trusted source[181]

My addition of this statement backed by those sources to the article was reverted 3 times by Wee yesterday. He routinely behaves as if he WP:OWNED several articles and as if his was the last word on the matter: I don't agree so it doesn't get consensus.

He will accuse me and Langus of WP:TAG teaming because we both agree that the sentence should be present in WP as does a third editor (Churn and Change), who recommended that much at the RS/N.

Wee accuses me of "getting bolder" when it was him who breached the 3RR yesterday by constantly reverting an edit agreed upon by 3 different editors.

"He's followed me all over wikipedia with the same attitude, I move on to improve another article and there he is", this is just a petty and untrue accusation. Several articles are related through the Falklands issue and Wee edits in all of them. Please take a look at my history[182] where you will find that 99% of my exchanges with Wee have taken place solely at the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute article. Aside from that one I have only collaborated in this one (Self-determination) and made two comments in the talk page of the Arana-Southern Treaty article long ago. That is all. Does this really count as me following Wee "all over wikipedia"?? Gaba p (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The opposite is true insofar as the "following all over Wikipedia" and Gaba's contributions provide the proof as I pointed out above. Gaba would like everyone to feel he is being persecuted when in fact he has been the persecutor and has has the help of User:Langus-TxT to help him at every opportunity - an editor that he knows full well also has a previous history with Wee and a careful review of his contributions [[183]] as well as his talk page remarks on the Falkland articles and his personal talk page and most recently here: [[184]] where he inserts himself into remarks that did not concern him, indicates a clear pattern as a tag-team participant with Gaba, at least to this veteran editor. Mugginsx (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Mugginsx I have no desire of anyone feeling that I'm being persecuted, it's you and Wee who are accusing me of persecuting him. As I said before, if one edits in almost any article related to the Falklands issue (as I have in only two of them) one is bound to come across Wee since he edits in virtually all of them (I restrain from saying literally because I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure it would be hard for anyone to come up with an article in WP about the Falklands that Wee isn't involved in)

Also, I find it funny to say the least how you are currently accusing Langus of not being involved in this current episode[185] and yet here you are. You, who I have never crossed paths before as far as I can remember prior to your out-of-nowhere attack in my talk page[186] (please point me to where we have if I'm mistaken), are right now defending Wee in a matter you were not involved in, in any of its ramifications (ie: the Self-determination article which you didn't edit, RS/N, DR/N, Ben MacDui's talk page[187], etc...) I have no problem with you defending Wee but, wouldn't you say you're being a tad hypocritical? Gaba p (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Gaba doesn't collaborate, he accuses someone of WP:OR and WP:SYN constantly and does not enter a discussion to find consensus, this is his mechanism to ignore any occasion when someone raises a quite reasonable point in talk. He accuses editors of lying rather than entering a discussion to find consensus. I am not proposing to discuss content at WP:ANI, which is about user behaviour, but there was a good reason given for reverting him and his dismissal as WP:OR and WP:SYN is not a reasonable response. I did not break WP:3RR, I gave an informative summary why I was reverting you and I raised it at WP:RSN, which is the latest place chosen to move the discussion. Unfortunately an editor at RSN forgot WP:BEANS and has given User:Gaba p another idea for disruptive and tendentious editing.

I end up in the classic dilemna faced by many productive editors at wikipedia who cares about WP:NPOV, when faced by an editor who won't discuss an edit in talk, who insists on bulldozing material into an article pushing a nationalist agenda of asking myself whether I should revert or not. If you examine User:Gaba p and User:Langus-TxT's edits they're not about improving wikipedia, they're about forcing what they refer to as the Argentine POV into articles. They're just getting more sophisticated about how they go about it.

You won't find me being uncivil to either and the last time this came up at an RFC an editor commented that my edits were fair and meticulously sourced [188], whilst Langus reverted cited edits without any real rationale. I've been hounded for a year. Virtually every edit I make is being reverted by these two, I have to take every edit round the boards to get 3rd party input. Really its beyond a joke. I can almost predict what will happen here, there'll be a load of tendentious arguments obscuring the real issues, Langus and Gaba will make a lot of unsubstantiated allegations against me and in the end nothing will happen. They'll continue doing makin life unpleasant here until I quit. Its exactly situations like this that is why wikipedia is losing productive content editors. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Wee, it is you who doesn't care about consensus. As I have pointed out already you reverted 3 times and edit that was agreed upon by 3 editors because you didn't agree with it.

You keep accusing me of being tendentious while it is you who is trying to keep a thoroughly sourced sentence out of WP by any means necessary. How am I bulldozing an edit that was agreed upon by at least 3 editors Wee? I'd say that it's actually you who are bulldozing said sentence out of WP, based (as was told to you not only by Langus and I but by two other editors at RS/N[189]) in your WP:OR and WP:SYN.

"Virtually every edit I make is being reverted by these two", Wee you know very well the opposite is actually true. In fact, it's the whole reason we are here now: because you reverted 3 times an edit agreed by 3 editors.

I have no desire of Wee being blocked (and of course no desire of being blocked myself), I just need Wee to stop acting like he WP:OWNED those articles he is involved in and accept that every once in a while other editors can and will make contributions to them and, though he may not personally agree with such edits, that is not a valid reason to remove them. Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you two now please stop continuing your fight on this page? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

As Wee has just said above, this is why good editors get tired and just give up on Wikipedia. I can say as a careful observer on the article edit history and the article talk pages that Gaba has been the obstructionist in this case and it seems that sadly, he just will say anthing it seems to keep an argument going. It seems that Wikipedia is just a "game" for him. I do not say that lightly. His language and his edits, especially on the Self-determination article, but elsewhere also, seem to indicate that he is not at all interested in the furtherance or the quality of the article, but to just continue the reverts and not discuss substance. I wanted to edit on the article but could see what was happening. It discourages other editor when they see this. It is really too bad, but something needs to be done to convince Gaba that Wikipedia is not a video game- the prime directive to outmaneuver and frustrate ones' opponent. I have been here on Wikipedia for some time and if there is one thing I have learned early (as most editors do) it is to differentiate the well-intentioned editors from the others. If proof is needed then it is here and in the article pages I have mentioned. Mugginsx (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Mugginsx, your recent vicious attacks at me have me baffled. You are the first editor to accuse me of more wrong-doing that Wee (and that is an amazing feat) What can I say in my defense if you have already uncovered the truth? Clearly this is a game to me, that's why I've put in so many hours trying to improve an article with a sentence that keeps getting reverted by Wee. Surely that's why I fought tooth and nail for over a month to have my account back when I was wrongly accused of being a sock-puppet to the point that I gave away my right to anonymity[190]. Right? One would say that an editor that takes WP as a game would have just let that account die and made another one. But hey, what do I know. I'm just a kid who thinks WP is a video-game. Cheers man.

Fut.Perf. yes, understood. I will only write here again if my input is requested. Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I have not been told I cannot edit here so I will answer as best I can. I wanted to contribute on that Falkslands related article. I took some time to research with the idea of inserting a constructive paragraph into Self-determination, which perhaps would also go into the sister article. What I saw there were two editors, both of whom have past beefs with editor Wee, tag-teaming him on purpose. How do I know this? Because I have been here a long time and because it is obvious to anyone who looks. I tried to approach you on this and you sent what I took to be a vicious email back to me. That matter has been resolved by an administrator and I will mention no further. The reverts of Wees work were discussed openly and honestly by one editor only, namely Wee. He presented argument with links which I looked up myself and found to be valid in my opinion. They were said to be false links or not good enough or one sided or pro-British or WP:OR anything that you and your team member could think of and the variety of your answers and the complete failure to have a civil conversation about the same edit showed to me that you were not sincere. I found those links with no trouble. Why couldn't you? No, there was something else going on there and perhaps it is really over this perceive injustice you mention, I do not know. You mention that Wee worked on many of the articles, so far as I know that is nothing wrong or new at Wikipedia and generally shows a real interest and knowledge in the subject. When working with other good faith editors, it usually makes for excellent articles. Anyway, when I said it looked like you were "Playing games" that is because that, to my mind, is exactly what was and still is happening, only now here on this board. I don't wish you ill will but I do not think you and your friend have been acting in good faith, as a matter of act, I know it. You seem like a very angry editor as does your friend and especially angry at Wee and as you just need to be prepared that other editors have other points of view on an article and if they are well-sourced, which this one was, and do not violate real wiki guidelines, then you have to let them in. Mugginsx (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It was earlier suggested by Administrator User:Ben MacDui that some links be provided here which serve to prove the accusations made by Wee, myself, and another editor. Here are some that I found:

See [191], [192], [193]. [194], [195],[196], [197], [198]. All examples of the same tendentious editing by User:Gaba p. His constantly treats present historical events as just a British claim. Referring to the talk page Wee shows that sources of all nationalities confirm the same series of events, original eye witness accounts of all nationalities agree. He has never produced a source to back this up see WP:DRN#Self-determination, when asked his response is to accuse Wee of WP:OR and WP:SYN and not answer.

[199] An example of a typical response to attempting to engage Gaba in a reasonable discussion. In one response Gaba accuses Wee of using talk page discussions to maintain the status quo, editing because of a dislike of Argentina, claiming all Wee's sources are "pro-British", instead of looking at the sources Wee provides, he simply accuses Wee of deciding what is fact and what is a lie. Mugginsx (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

(Ignoring groundless accusations from an editor I've just have met, and to whom I am suspicious as he claims to know very well my activities in WP)

These edit wars stem from the inability (or unwillingness) of Wee Curry Monster to correctly interpret the advice of knowledgeable editors, together with his "not-give-an-inch" behavior and WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT attitude when he believes he's right (possibly always).

In this particular case, two times uninvolved editors have told WCM to attribute the statements and not incur in original research: this NPOVN thread three months ago, and this recent one at WP:RSN. But, as you can see from the comments in both threads, he just isn't prepared to accept he's wrong.

In the last three reverts by WCM to the article, you can see he's pushing in the source Key to an Enigma, by Oliveri López. If you took the time to read through the last NPOVN thread, you should know that Lopez was recommended to be avoided, but that instead Risman could and should[200][201][202] be used. Attitudes like these are the ones that cause an edit war.

Also note that WCM did broke the 3RR rule: [203][204][205][206]
And he nearly did so again yesterday: [207][208][209]

An example of WCM fighting till the end an edit backed by the majority can be found here (please note the reactions at subsection Enough when WCM accuses of TAG-TEAMING). This Thatcher issue led to a Mediation Cabal case which, despite the remarkable well-played role of the mediator, ended up in nothing. If you read the article now, the "Leaders" section of the infobox is missing.

Another example of his intransigence: an administrator tells him to be careful with accusations of vandalism, and he merely dismisses his advice.

Finally, I'd like to point out that insinuations of socket-puppetry in discussions like this are completely unacceptable. I've been victim of this harassment by WCM for a year or so, till he finally seemed to stop after a discussion at Wikiquette Assistance (do note how he ends up fighting the volunteer).
Or maybe it was just a coincidence, I don't really know given how he refused to acknowledge the opinions there. --Langus (t) 03:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - I point out sources are in agreement [210], [211] contentious argument but no reply and simply asserting its a British Claim. Repeat and you have entire talk page discussion. And as Mugginsx shows above the pair of them edit war their own WP:OR and WP:SYN into the article whilst accusing others of the same.

The "thoroughly sourced sentence" is sourced but the language in the source is ambiguous and its being used out of context. Its a classic example of abusing sources to make a point the original author didn't intend to make and they ignore the comment on p.300 in the same source that contradicts it. Relevant quotes are at WP:DRN as well as my attempt to discuss it before they chose to edit war it into the article.

His claim that I broke 3RR is untrue the first edit linked to above is a correction to an untrue statement introduced by Langus. I don't edit war, I tried to follow WP:BRD but that was frustrated by WP:TAG from these two to force a change into the article. I truly believe they were trying to get me to break 3RR to get me blocked.

As regards the NPOVN discussion, I still remain unconvinced. The source they wanted to use made a claim attributing a statement to another author. That author made a completely different statement in line with all of the other sources. WP:COMMON still seems to suggest that is sufficient cause for a discussion about its reliability - but you can't discuss with two editors who constantly accuse of WP:OR and WP:SYN rather than address a concern you raise.

The Medcab case he refers to as an example of my intransigence, I made a post in talk, waited for 2 weeks for a response, having not got one made a WP:BOLD edit, that was reverted out of hand, the editor then posted at WT:MILHIST canvassing other editors to follow him. It was I who started the Medcab and read it, I make comments about content the protagonist in that case makes a lot of allegations but no comment on content. How is it intransigent to follow WP:DR and remains WP:CIVIL?

I did disagree with User:Dennis Brown we had an extensive discussion on his talk page, we agree to disagree. However, given the conversation remained civil neither of us bear any grudge about it. Please ask him - and btw this is the second time Langus has tried to make more of our discussion than it was, we all disagree from time to time but a frank (but civil) exchange of views is healthy.

As regards the comments about sock puppets. Falklands articles have been plagued by a prolific sock puppeteer. The profile of many of these is an account registered between 2007 and 2009 that doesn't edit for years, then embarks on edit wars to insert the Argentine POV. Langus' editing and Gaba p's editing fit the same profile.

Like I said I expected a load of frivolous allegations to obscure the central issue, which is that Langus and Gaba will edit war to force what they describe as the Argentine POV into articles and what they refer to as the truth from the Argentine perspective into articles. They've followed me to multiple articles and have plagued my edits. Enough is enough. They can't accept that NPOV is about presenting the weight of opinion in the literature and the British and Argentine positions from a neutral perspective. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has now become a mirror image of the edit summaries and talk pages of the articles mentioned here. Wee and I provide links and Gaba and Langus still refuse to discuss CONTENT. Now instead Gaba, is accusing me of having some "special knowledge of his activities", (who does he think I am, Jimbo Wales assistant?. ) Langus, (his relentless assistant), also with the underlying motive of revenge for WeeCurryMonster, have also continued to use and pervert the guidelines and rules of Wikipedia to obstruct and frustrate this discussion just as they both did on the Wikipedia article detailed here - using misrepresentations, Wikipedia:Tag team and innuendo. I repeat the obvious intention is to frustrate and pervert the well-intended process here and ultimately to make a fool of the all of the editors and administrators who volunteer their time trying to work toward an honest solution. The proof has been abundantly provided here. There are volumes more at the article(s) talk page.

Langus even had the audacity to interject snide comments on another page into a finished discussion that I had with an administrator over something that did not in anyway concern him! It was not until the administrator came back to comment, that he slithered away and has now finally come here to turn and twist the truth in the same way and manner he thinks he is so skilled at - under the apparent delusion that he is cleverer and smarter that everyone here, including the administrators! Langus, for your information it was Gaba who was the first one to bring up the sockpuppetry accusations not anyone else. Just another intentional misrepresentation. Langus, instead of being clever here, your are sadly acting like the most common form of a Wikipedia troublemarker. Unfortunately, we have more then our share of those and do not need anymore. This is turning into one of the worst examples of editors’ misconduct I have ever personally seen on Wikipedia and to allow them to get away with it is to laugh in the face of every well-intentioned volunteer and administrator here and at Wikipedia as a whole. The proof is abundantly clear and I think it is time to shut this sham of a discussion down and sanction these two editors Gaba and Langus to send a message that Wikipedia editors and administrators are tired of Wikipedia:Tag teameditors who waste everyone's time and make serious and productive editors want to give up and leave Wikipedia. In my opinion, further discussion is pointless but a sanction on these two editors made just work and avoid further escalation and further waste of everyone's time. In my experience, it is the only things that does work.

• I respectfully move to close this discussion with a request for sanctions against especially User:Langus-TxT who does not even respect the decision of administrators, [[212]] for obvious Tag Teaming and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and User:Gaba p who has spent one year obstructing and reverting Wee's Reliable Sources [[213]] even after they were verified at [[214]] and not acting in good faith. This will hopefully put a stop to abuse and finally to allow the the hard-working and serious editors and the administrators here to go back to the usually joyful work of creating and/or improving Wikipedia articles and working with good faith editors. Mugginsx (talk) 10:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  For heaven's sake, Muggins, can you please stop fiddling with your own postings for ours on end? You've now edited your own posting like, how many times, twenty? What I'm seeing here is walls of text, and maybe you should start asking yourself whether the fact that this thread has been drawing next to no outside participation from uninvolved editors might be related to your own behaviour here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I have been busy adding links to my last paragraph to show the abuse links which did unfortunately take some more doing then I expected. I have not re-factored any previous paragraphs. I will certain defer to your request. The walls of text, I am not sure what you mean. I was requested by an administrator to add Links and I complied. Sorry, if it caused any problems. I like to be exact and may have been overenthusiastic in that pursuit. Apologies Mugginsx (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

FutPer, you were pretty quick to insert - as an editor with some strong interactions with WCM in the past - your opinion for a block on him alone. From all of this it is rather clear you were very wrong as to the uniqueness of WCM in this, I hope we can now see a recognition of your error? WCM's failure is that he is happy to fight on his own like a dog in a corner for what he feels is right against what he perceives are agenda pushers. It has its draw backs, and at times he drifts over the line, but your perptual blindness to the actions others take in situation around him is baffling. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The almost instant call for a block on Wee by Adm. Fut. who has a prior history with him did take me by surprise as well. I had never seen that before. Now there are two editors and one administrator involved in this dispute with a unrelated negative past history with Wee. Probably a good reason to recuse oneself if only for the avoidance of the appearance of impropriety. Mugginsx (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The above accusations are numerous and not straightforward to unravel. No-one involved should think they are immune to criticism. Here are a few questions for some of the individuals concerned. They are not the only ones that arise by any means and my second one, for example, might well be asked of more than one editor.

1. WCM, you remain convinced that Gaba p and indef blocked User:Alex79818 are one and the same. The history of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex79818/Archive is certainly a disturbing one and there are some similarities. For example, it seems an extraordinary coincidence that Gaba p began editing at Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute after a two year absence at the time User:Abenyosef was reported as a suspected sock of Alex79818. However, I am puzzled as to why you think they are one and the same given that Gaba p seems to have provided a real-life identity that is not the same as that of Alex79818. This is a serious accusation - but how do you justify it beyond assertions about WP:DUCK?

2. Assuming WCM is wrong in this assertion, the accusations nonetheless draw attention to similar behaviours even if they are being carried out by different persons. Mugginsx reminds us of the unhappy truth that disruptive behaviour "is why good editors get tired and just give up on Wikipedia". Gaba p, your inability to see anything disruptive in your approach, your disregard for WP:CIVIL and your ongoing edit warring give cause for concern. There isn't much that I have seen at Self-determination that suggests your input is improving the article and it must surely be off-putting to editors who do not share your enthusiasms. Do you think the encyclopedia would be harmed if you were given a topic ban on Falklands related articles, and if so, why?

3. Langus-TxT - you have been accused of operating as a tag team with both Alex79818 and Gaba p. Perhaps I missed a response in all the verbiage. What do you have to say about this?

Finally, we can all see that this situation has created ill-feeling that has been going on for too long, but it is in no-one's interests to issue threats. Please try to remain civil with one another. Please also try to keep your responses on-topic and as brief as possible. Sometimes less is more. Ben MacDui 15:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

From WP:TAG_TEAM: "Tag teaming (sometimes also called a "Travelling Circus") is a debatably form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus."

I have never done such a thing. My opinions tend to agree with those of other Argentine editors, and I have interest on the Falklands topic (as does Gaba p, Wee Curry Monster, and others), but that's it. I honestly don't remember too much about Alex, he was blocked shortly after I started to edit regularly, about 1,5 years ago. But I can assure that a) I am not him (and by now every editor in the Falklands articles know this, except perhaps WCM); and b) I never worked as a team with him, even if I may have supported a particular edit. The same goes to Gaba p.

Honestly, I've stopped responding to WCM's accusations of tag-teaming, and I think it's the best thing I can do. --Langus (t) 17:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I also accused him Ben and I do not take that back. The evidence is overwhelming. I think the best thing is an article ban for the tag team. Sorry, I am always ready to forgive after an honest apology because we all make mistakes, but there in no repentance here, just more denial. Mugginsx (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Mr Macdui, no there is more to it than that. I'll email you some more information that I can't reveal here. User:Nick-D considered the style was so similar he blocked Gaba straight away. User:JamesBWatson also considered the style so similar he considered not unblocking, despite the ID information. Stylistically they're identical eg [215] note the long tendentious repeating argument, the remarks directed toward me and the groundless accusation of POV editing, accusations of WP:OR etc, compare with the comments by Gaba at Talk:Self-determination, the habit of using bold text to highlight. Not to mention the use of source with a heavy POV slant. I could indicate more but per WP:BEANS its probably not a good idea. Take a gander at both contribution histories and you'll see what I mean. If you'd been harassed by Alex since 2007 you'd readily recognise the style.

As regards Langus, his remark above speaks volumes though I would imagine he still doesn't get it, specifically My opinions tend to agree with those of other Argentine editors, so he'll revert war in concert with other editors he agrees with to force those opinions into articles. We don't edit in line with our personal opinions, we put that aside to reflect what out sources say. Unfortunately Langus and Gaba select sources to support the edit they wish to make. He is constantly referring to having the Argentine POV represented, basically he doesn't understand NPOV on wikipedia. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

And here's what User:Nick-D said after Wee approached him a couple of days ago:

"Given that my block of that editor was (probably rightly) lifted as being a case of mistaken identity once further evidence was provided to an uninvolved admin, I'm not well placed to intervene with the admin tools in relation to their editing"

Admin User:JamesBWatson didn't even respond Wee after he made the same "plea for help" to him.

Ben, I'll make you the same offer I made Nick-D and James: have Wee tell you the identity of Alex and I'll once again reveal my identity as a sign of good faith, this time to you. I'm prepared to give you access to my FB and G+ just like I did with James and I'll respond any question you may need to ask me to convince yourself I am not that editor. Aside from this, I don't believe there's anything else I can do to once again stop Wee from accusing me of being a sock puppet. Gaba p (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to keep it as short as possible.

WCM actually knows Alex real life identity. That's why the ban was lifted after I gave away my right to anonymity, because the admin could check that we in fact were not the same person. I also point to the two small but highly scientific articles I've created so far (Thin disk and Thick disk) Did Axel ever do anything like that? Because that would be too much coincidence. I have a scientific training in physics and astronomy which I'm willing to put to the test anytime (I can't believe I'm still being called out to prove I'm not that editor...)

Ben, you seem to be taking sides assuming Wee is the good editor (prolific doesn't mean balanced) and I am the disruptive editor here. Just to remind us all why we are here: WCM reverted 3 times an edit agreed upon by 3 editors which he still denies. Yet you accuse me of "ongoing edit warring" and of "inability to see anything disruptive in your approach"??

Some context on the "disregard for WP:CIVIL" accusation. Editor Muggins and I had never crossed paths until he left this message on my talk page (note the tone) I responded here. He then proceeded to accuse me, out of the blue, of lots of things and to ask Ben for a ban on me. This is the response to that comment which Ben refers to as uncivil from my part (please do read it) Ben deleted that comment (but not Muggins comment) and I acknowledged that such comment could be taken as an offense by some editor[216]. Please also read this bizarre attack from Muggins (in hidden section) where he calls me sleezy. Ben does not consider this as uncivil apparently.

Ben, you haven't seen much because there isn't really much to see. This whole mess can be traced to the sentence: "Other authors state that the Argentine inhabitants were in fact expelled by the British", which is basically what WCM reverted 3 times. It's a minor edit in it's extension but a very important one because it presents the view of several authors contrary to the view that supports the British claim (which is already present in the article) Yes, I do believe WP would be harmed because WCM would never approve (yes, approve because WCM behaves as if he WP:OWNED Falklands-related articles) the inclusion of counter-sources for the British claim (as he still is attempting to do, given that the article has a NPOV template) without an editor willing to go through all this trouble. Gaba p (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

No an editor at RSN suggested that source, noting my comment that it was self-contradictory. I expressed a concern the language was too ambiguous to support the claim it was supposed to support but you and Langus took that suggestion as a mandate to force it into the article and ignore the BRD process. You didn't have any such mandate. You refused to discuss it - forcing me into a quandary - you'll note I didn't break 3RR nevertheless.

You also edit warred to force the previous edit into the article, ignoring my concerns till RSN showed it was unreliable - a polite discussion in talk would have resolved matters long before that. As regards the NPOV tag - note the talk page discussion I started again. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Wee you know you can't just lie like that here in WP where everyone can go check the written record of what you did. "you'll note I didn't break 3RR nevertheless", I've lost track of the number of times you've denied breaking the 3RR by now. Here's what is stored in the article's history: I make the edit[217] and 4 minutes later Wee makes the first revert[218]. Langus reverts Wee[219] and 7 minutes later Wee reverts a second time[220]. Now I revert Wee [221] and I even add a third source for the statement[222] (a source whose author was recommended at the RS/N) 7 minutes later Wee reverts a third time[223], the new source plus the rest.

Each of Wee's reverts brought back into the article the source showed to be unreliable at RS/N (Lopez). In his blind reverts Wee edited that source back into the article, even tough he knew just as well as me or Langus that we were advised not to use it. His reverts even added back an obvious grammatical mistake ("contemporary records historical") which I had corrected and pointed out to him in the Talk page days ago on the 14th[224].

The fact that you would feel comfortable repeating something you know is untrue time after time (at the Admin noticeboard nonetheless) makes me think you must be really confident about not getting blocked. Gaba p (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thats a very carefully selected series of diffs to create a misleading impression. (1) I didn't break 3RR, I didn't cross the line. (2) See also [225] which precedes your edit, indicating that I didn't consider it adequately verified the claim. (3) [226] the edit summary draws attention to the discussion.

I tried to discuss this with you before you made the edit and you'll note I refrained from making the edit I'd suggested [227] whilst waiting for consensus to be formed. You and Langus formed a tag team to force it into the article, whilst DR was in progress, I refrained from editing my proposal. I wouldn't normally have reverted 3 times either but I was asking you to follow BRD. There isn't a grammar error, though you have manged to mangle a sentence and separated a comment from the statement it was supporting. You left a CN tag on material you previously removed a UN cite for, to replace by Lopez which you'd edit warred into the article previously. You know what yes you can check the history. I invite everyone to do so. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

How can you say "I didn't break 3RR, I didn't cross the line" (whatever crossing the line means) and then say "I wouldn't normally have reverted 3 times". You are acknowledging you reverted 3 times in a matter of hours but somehow it isn't a breach of the 3RR?

"indicating that I didn't consider it adequately verified the claim", brilliant example of Wee acting as if he WP:OWNED the article. The edit was backed by 3 editors but since he didn't agree with it, there is no consensus and thus it isn't allowed in WP.

"You and Langus formed a tag team", no we did not. We, along with a third editor agreed on an edit you disagreed with. Your accusation of tag team are getting older and weaker each time you do it.

"There isn't a grammar error", maybe I'm not understanding your english correctly but "contemporary records historical" reads like an error to me (the correct wording being "contemporary historical records"), which you introduced with one of your edits[228] and I corrected right after[229]. This didn't last long though, since with every one of your rv's you kept putting it back in.

"You left a CN tag on material you previously removed a UN cite for, to replace by Lopez which you'd edit warred into the article previously". First: there was never a UN source for said claim when I added the cn tag, there was actually no source at all which is why I added the tag. Please go check my first edit made to the article[230], it's the last cn tag I added. Second: the Lopez source was added by Moxy[231] not by me and certainly not in replace of anything. Third: such a claim can only be sourced with an official Argentinian source because it is an official Argentinian position what is being stated. It can't be sourced with a history book and much less a book that was advised to both you and me not to use as a source. Yet in spite of all this you kept adding that book as a source for that claim over and over again.

Wee, the statement is backed by three reputable sources (I'm pretty sure I can get more) and backed by 3 editors. The question is: will you stop removing said statement? Gaba p (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I have collected more evidence against the tag-teaming accusation, in case it's needed. --Langus (t) 20:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Could we possibly have some more outside admin eyes here? On examining the edit-warring history and the surrounding talk page hullaballoo, I'd be ready to impose blocks on the two main offenders, but one of them has voiced concerns he would consider me "involved" (because of some unrelated conflict he had with me four years ago), so I'd prefer to hand this over to somebody else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

So you'd advocate blocking the only person who remained civil, started DR, started talk page discussions as one of the "main offenders" and leave the way clear for his mate to carry on his agenda? And do you seriously think he won't pop up again with a new sock puppet with 5 minutes? In which case, what is the point of following WP:CIVIL or even WP:DR? Its certainly not in any way preventative, its punitive simply because of an RFC 4 years ago that examined abuse of admin powers in image deletions by FPaS.

I've remained civil, I've followed WP:DR and more importantly never broke 3RR. I started the talk page discussion before Gaba and his mate started to edit war in the midst of DR to impose their opinion. I've provided the diffs to show it, the others have provide nothing to substantiate their allegations, except for them to serve to muddy the waters.

Simple example, above Gaba claims this wasn't cited to a UN document [232] sorry but the article history tells a different story. Tell me how can a disruptive editor get away with lying so blatantly at ANI in order to get an established and productive editor blocked. May I also ask why you haven't been checking the diffs supplied as it seems manifestly obvious you're not checking the evidence.

Please tell me how am I supposed to discuss content with two editors who repeat the mantra everything opposing them is WP:OR and WP:SYN and never discuss anything? You know that nationalism is a pox on wikipedia but you clearly don't care about the problem. Settling old scores is more important it seems, it really saddens me, it really does. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

To add, simple question This is where I started, this is my last edit and this is the article today. Which of these are representing a NPOV and can you spot the obvious flaw in one? Which one is abusing their sources to attribute a meaning their authors never intended? Which editor would you want editing to present a NPOV, because I'm intrgued to know. Really at the end of the day, do you want the editor presenting a NPOV, or get him out of the way to clear the field for the editor that doesn't? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

"Gaba claims this wasn't cited to a UN document [233] sorry but the article history tells a different story". What in god's name are you talking about??? The UN citation is still there Wee I never touched it[234] PLEASE some admin go to the article and check reference [81] which is the one Wee keeps saying I removed. He is lying again and again, I never touched that reference!. You are the disruptive editor Wee, you are the one who started this and you are the one who ended up breaking the 3RR rule, not me YOU. I have had it with your constant accusation of sock puppet Wee, you need to drop it. I can't believe you have the nerve of claiming you have remained civil while constantly accusing me of being a sock puppet.

It was not just Langus and I who told him he was incurring in WP:OR and WP:SYN, two more editors told him the exact same thing at RS/N and he still won't acknowledge it[235]:

1. "Yes, the fact-checking you are doing is OR"; Churn and change (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
2. "WCM: You aren't a political historian on wikipedia—you're an encyclopaedia editor, stop engaging in original historical research."; Fifelfoo (talk) 02:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Wee had no valid reason to remove 3 times a properly sourced statement backed by 3 editors. Fut.P, what did I do to deserve a ban? He's the one who broke the 3RR not me. Why would I be banned for adding to an article a thoroughly sourced statement backed by two more editors?? Gaba p (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, time out.

You (all) have uninvolved administrators attention. This will get reviewed. It's not going to be easy to review. Please stop re-fighting the arguments from elsewhere here on ANI; it will not help you or speed up the process or make it a higher quality review.

Please be patient. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Administrators may need to take into account the following issue: [236][237] --Langus (t) 23:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you point to where I've been uncivil Langus? That case relates to a time where I was suffering from mental health problems and was having a hard time of it - I made some grossly uncivil remarks, for which I apologised unreservedly and made no attempt to justify my actions. My editing was very uncharacteristic. There is a part of the WP:CIVIL that suggests it is very uncivil to fling accusations for past conduct, when an editor has apologised sincerely and has not repeated the behaviour. Please think about that for a moment. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

How about you calling me a sock-puppet, a disruptive editor, a tag-teamer, a mud slinger and a POV pusher every other two sentences Wee? I'd definitely say that qualifies as being uncivil, wouldn't you?. Gaba p (talk) 17:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Per comment above by Georgewilliamherbert I am not encouraging further discussion, but for the benefit of those attempting to make sense of these lengthy discussions I note the following in respect of my above questions.

1. WCM remains convinced that Gaba p and Alex79818 are one and the same. No new evidence has been submitted as such, but the issue might benefit from some fact-finding. WCM needs to recognise that edit warring is not a concept that is defined by and limited to 3RR, as no doubt do others.

2. I note that Gaba p does not provide a clear answer my question, but simply goes on a further spree of accusations. Some of them may be merited, but that is not the point. WCM's alleged ownership of articles is not an excuse for disrupting them.

3. Langus-TxT's answers have the considerable virtue of brevity. His statement that "my opinions tend to agree with those of other Argentine editors" does hint at an unfamiliarity with the concept of NPOV, but whilst tedious and time-consuming it should not be hard to form an opinion as to whether or not he has been tag teaming. Ben MacDui 07:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Mr Macdui, just for the record, I revert another editor with great reluctance and I don't consider 3RR gives me 3 reverts, I practise and follow WP:BRD. The appearance of edit warring stems from encountering two editors determined to have their way. Their behaviour has been observed on multiple articles, they've been reverted by multiple editors on those occasions. This is a niche article that has two focuses for interest, one of which is an anorak like myself. I find myself alone on this occasion seeing good work taken in a direction away from a neutral perspective. I tried the talk page, I followed DR, I remained civil, I tried to get help on multiple occasions to bring the situation under control and on each occasion its swamped by huge waves of tendentious argument, flinging lots of accusations about, with no substance behind them. The tactic seems to be fling loads of mud around to obscure the issue and I'll be honest in that it seems to be very successful. Really if you think any of my editing is problematic I am open to a discussion as to how I could have handled it better. My only motivation is to write articles on an area of interest of mine, in which I have a great deal of knowledge and experience, my track record is to write in a neutral manner and I really could do with being left to get on with what I'm good at - creating article content. Its all I really want to do, I don't need this hassle as it makes wikipedia a chore rather than a pleasure.

May I also request you discuss with User:Nick-D why I might be reluctant to comment on the information i do have about Alex79818.

As regards the accusation of WP:OWN, look at the article history I changed the edit to reflect concerns expressed. Further in regards of such accusations, they're following me here. I moved to get away from them and they followed me. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Ben, just three small things: you only asked me one question and I answered it fully, should I try to be more clear? Could you point me to the edit (or group of edits) of mine you regard as disruptive (if not here at least in my talk page)? My offer made above still stands: have WCM tell you the ID of this editor and as a sign of good faith I will reveal myself to you to convince you I am not that person. Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 12:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I will consider the contents of the above two posts and revert here in due course. Ben MacDui 17:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless admin feel that blocks are appropriate I suggest kicking this over to Wikipedia:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group where this should have been worked out to begin with.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

A well intended suggestion, I have no doubt, so I will make one too, and that is: that after Talk:Self-determination then Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and then Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and finally HERE, not to mention the various other User: talk pages, etc., and finally the PRIOR HISTORIES all of which have either been mentioned or linked here, I would suggest a temporary or permanent interactive ban OR article ban between the editors would better solve the problem quickly and permanently. Wikipedia:Banning policy It fits. Mugginsx (talk) 10:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

A proposal

I would like to make a proposal that I hope will go some way to nip this unpleasantness in the bud.

1. Gaba and Langus agree to an interaction ban for 1 year, ie they will not edit articles where I am active. I agree to do the same.

2. Gaba and Langus agree to accept a mentor to coach them on the NPOV policy. As Mr MacDui notes above their responses here indicate that neither grasp the fundamentals of the policy.

3. Gaba and Langus agree as part of the mentoring approach to respond to talk page messages in a civil manner and to engage in discussion to meet consensus. They both need to realise that it is not sufficient to simply repeatedly dismiss a comment as WP:OR and WP:SYN - they have to discuss it.

4. Gaba agrees to a voluntary 1 year topic ban on Falkland's articles, broadly construed. He indicates that he wishes to contribute to wikipedia on astronomy articles, this will give him a chance to work on content in an area where he does not hold strong opinions.

5. If Mr MacDui considers I could have handled things another way, I am perfectly happy to take direction and even mentoring if he thinks it appropriate.

6. At the end of any interaction/topic bans, all 3 editors agree to bind themselve to BRD ie if any of their reverts the edits of another, all will agree to discuss till a consensus is achieved. One caveat to this is that this is not an excuse to filibuster discussions for ever to frustrate consensus and if an uninvolved admin sees this to be the case he will institute an escalating series of blocks till the behaviour ceases. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? How can you even begin to consider I will accept being banned for a full year for a matter that came to ANI after you broke the 3RR reverting an edit agreed upon by 3 editors? You edit-war an article and me and Langus get banned? Wee let me remind you that two more editors advised you to stop engaging in WP:OR and WP:SYN[238], you can keep repeating it was just me and Langus but that doesn't make it true. What would you think if I made a counter-proposal where I advised for you to be banned for a year from all Falkland-related articles given your strong opinions on the matter? Do I need to mention your 48hs block for breaking the 3RR 3 days after you started editing the spanish WP (in a Falklands article of course)[239]? Does it really need to come to this because you refuse to accept a sourced sentence in an article? Gaba p (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Just unbelievable. You've just barely dodged a ban and yet you have the delusional idea of playing the admin.

First of all, let me start by saying that on 25 August, 2011, I made some proposals to try to stop this from happening, when no admin was looking. You declined them.

Let me explain you why this "proposal" is largely uneven:

"1. Gaba and Langus agree to an interaction ban for 1 year, ie they will not edit articles where I am active. I agree to do the same." -- have you even stopped to think about how this rule #1 applies to articles in which all of us are active? Should we all withdraw or are you expecting that all of them are yours? Furthermore: why are you redefining the expression "interaction ban" when there's already a very precise one?

"2. Gaba and Langus agree to accept a mentor to coach them on the NPOV policy. As Mr MacDui notes above their responses here indicate that neither grasp the fundamentals of the policy." -- you've been told in two different noticeboards[240][241] that you don't grasp the fundamentals of the WP:OR policy. Yet, you are not submitting yourself to coaching.

"3. Gaba and Langus agree as part of the mentoring approach to respond to talk page messages in a civil manner and to engage in discussion to meet consensus." -- let's just say you would definitely benefit of such a mentoring... Your activities at the Wikiquette noticeboard and the Gibraltar articles should hint you so.

"4. Gaba agrees to a voluntary 1 year topic ban on Falkland's articles, broadly construed. He indicates that he wishes to contribute to wikipedia on astronomy articles, this will give him a chance to work on content in an area where he does not hold strong opinions." -- NO COMMENTS. You're unilaterally topic-banning Gaba p. Unbelievable.

"5. If Mr MacDui considers I could have handled things another way, I am perfectly happy to take direction and even mentoring if he thinks it appropriate." -- this is all the burden you put on yourself: a non-confirmed mentoring to be determinated by a hand-picked admin. Maybe you should propose "...and even ban if he thinks it appropriate", the same way you've just banned Gaba? That would at least make it interesting. ;)

"6. At the end of any interaction/topic bans, all 3 editors agree to bind themselve to BRD ie if any of their reverts the edits of another, all will agree to discuss till a consensus is achieved. One caveat to this is that this is not an excuse to filibuster discussions for ever to frustrate consensus and if an uninvolved admin sees this to be the case he will institute an escalating series of blocks till the behaviour ceases." -- a well oriented rule on which I would LOVE to work on, but you have to understand that if we don't clearly define a way to determine if there's consensus or not for a proposed change, we'll end up here again.

All these series of "sanctions" and impositions against Gaba and me, compared to the not-confirmed sanction against you (which could be none) shows that, to your eyes, Gaba and Langus are more guilty than Wee Curry Monster. A view that it's not entirely shared by everyone: [242][243]. And reviewing the history of this talk page I can see a few editors/admins that have suffered you in the past. Maybe they're excusing themselves?

If you're going to argue that the proposal is even, fair and "neutral", then I'll make a counter-offer, that in that case should be the same one for you:

counter-proposal

1. Wee Curry Monster agrees to an interaction ban for 1 year, ie he will not edit articles where Gaba P or me are active. Gaba P and I agree to do the same. 2. Wee Curry Monster agrees to accept a mentor to coach him on the WP:OR policy. As the comments in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Verification_source_citations_is_this_WP:OR_and_WP:SYN.3F note, he doesn't grasp the fundamentals of the policy. 3. Wee Curry Monster agrees as part of the mentoring approach to respond to talk page messages in a civil manner and to engage in discussion to meet consensus. He needs to realise that it is not sufficient to simply edit war his view into the article - he has to discuss it. 4. Wee Curry Monster agrees to a voluntary 1 year topic ban on UK-related articles, broadly construed. He indicates that he wishes to contribute to wikipedia on (topic? help me here) articles, this will give him a chance to work on content in an area where he does not hold strong opinions. 5. If Mr MacDui considers I could have handled things another way, I am perfectly happy to take direction and even mentoring if he thinks it appropriate. 6. At the end of any interaction/topic bans, all 3 editors agree to bind themselve to BRD ie if any of their reverts the edits of another, all will agree to discuss till a consensus is achieved. If this point is accepted, it will be immediately defined how consensus will be determined and the necessary metrics so as no party can claim that "filibustering" is occurring.

See how it changes when you turn the play board? That's asymmetry.

Bye Wee. --Langus (t) 03:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

::I found this at the other noticeboard with no appropriate message given here.

I am closing this DR/N as the wrong venue at this time. The workgroup is a better place to discuss this seemgly endless dispute. If the group cannot not work this out it may be returned to DR/N. It may be a good idea to use some of the suggestions made here, but this should have been taken to the project before it got out of hand at AN/I and DR/N.Amadscientist (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC) — If you find this explanation unhelpful, feel free to inquire on the closer's talk page.

::And another annoucement here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group

Dispute Self determinationA DR/N and AN/I case has been opened in regards to this article under the scope of this project work group. I have kicked the DR/N back to this group for discussion. Any questions can be addressed on my talk page...in a civil manner please.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Another useless effort and waste of time.

:Who has made this determination? Has an administrator agreed to this duplicative discussion or is it even needed? What a collosial waste of time. No wonder why editors say nothing gets solved here at Wikipedia. Did anyone ever read Forum Shopping? I copied these announcements and entered them here and elsewhere. Mugginsx (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Gaba p would you mind stopping the re-factoring and putting you remarks where they do NOT belong. You have been told that by an Administrator here and elsewhere and by other editors and yet you keep doing it. You cannot continue to arrange this discussion in the order and in the way you wish it went but rather in the order of the edit as shown by the time stamp. Please put your latest paragraph where it belongs Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. In case you have lost track I am referring to the edit before mine stamped Gaba p (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC) Thank you. Geez! Mugginsx (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Muggins, I wrote my comment above yours because I'm responding to Wee's "proposal" and not to your somewhat displaced comment that would be better fitted for Amadscientist's talk page who made both comments you are referring to. I am not re-factoring anything and as you will see it is a quite common thing to do. You can check for example this very same page not two comments above this new sub-section, where Wee inserted his comment (16:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)) above mine (12:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)). I'd appreciate it if you would cease the random attacks against me please. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, mybad. You do the same please because I am tired of it and you are no victim.Mugginsx (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Request for Uninvolved Administrator to close. After reading all of the noticeboards, talk page discussions, etc., on this subject up to and including the most recent comments from both Gaba p and Langus txt, it seems clear that neither is going to stop harassing Wee. They both have prior negative history with Wee and it is obvious that in their view this is pay-back time. My review of especially User:Gaba p's edits show edits on only two of the Falklands article and those edits are extremely minimal and specifically

targeted to attack and frustrate Wee's edits, showing no real desire to improve the articles. Many times User:Langus-TxT is backing him up. I do not believe Gaba p has any real interest in the Falklands articles, truth be told. I therefore once again propose an interactive ban or article ban among some or all of them. I hope some uninvolved administrator will see this farce for what it is and propose this solution. I believe it is the only way. Wikipedia:Banning policy Article, topic, or editor interaction was created for JUST THIS SITUATION. Let's put this problem to sleep once and for all. To propose yet another format or noticeboard is Forum Shopping, is useless, is a waste of time and will NOT work. It will not work because there is no good-faith on the part of the tag team. Once again, I believe it is time for the non-involved administrator to take this action and I sincerely hope he does so. Mugginsx (talk) 07:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

My ear itches....someone must be talking about me on AN/I.....without notifying me. Why do I not trust someone who goes out of their way to use me, my posts and my DR/N closing and yet doesn't bother to follow intructions for this board to request a closing as "forum shopping"?--Amadscientist (talk) 09:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Should there be topic bans for everyone? Call it an early Christmas gift.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

You have it exactly backwards. I believe it was you that should have notified here. Please be civil. Mugginsx (talk) 09:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

At least this reminded me to double check and see if I had left a message at the IP's page for the discussion below. Why do you suppose I had an obligation to notify this board of my closing a DR/N? How does that excuse you not notifying me that you are posting my comments? Please...be as detailed as wish.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

If I should have notified you that you have my apologies. The remarks were not personal to you but rather that you seemed to want to make this ANI void and return it to a committee which would have obvious limitations as to scope of the real problems being discussed here. The problems here exceed the scope of the committee. Mugginsx (talk) 09:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah...that was not civil of you to accuse me of attempting void an AN/I filing. Care to explain that one? AN/I is not a related board to DR/N, which is an informal process that is non binding. This board is for administrative intervention and may result in actual sanctions. My accepting your apology is neither here nor there. What is your purpose in dragging me in to this filing? How is any of this civil?--Amadscientist (talk) 10:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no intention of furthering this discussion with you. I have apologized, you have not. This ANI needs to be resolved and really has nothing to do with either of us. Mugginsx (talk) 10:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

What do I need to aplogise for? Seriously. It ain't candy to be tossed to the crowd. You bring me up to make accusations and then tell me "I have no intention of furthering this discussion with you" and "This ANI needs to be resolved and really has nothing to do with either of us."

It does now. Explain yourself please.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Request for Uninvolved Administrator to close. After reading all of the noticeboards, talk page discussions, etc., on this subject up to and including the most recent comments from both Gaba p and Langus txt, it seems clear that neither is going to stop harassing Wee. They both have prior negative history with Wee and it is obvious that in their view this is pay-back time. My review of especially User:Gaba p's edits show edits on only two of the Falklands article and those edits are extremely minimal and specifically designed to attack and frustrate Wee's edits, showing no real desire to improve the articles. Many times User:Langus-TxT is backing him up. I do not believe Gaba p has any real interest in the Falklands articles, truth be told. I therefore once again propose an interactive ban or article ban among some or all of them. I hope some uninvolved administrator will see this farce for what it is and propose this solution. I believe it is the only way. Wikipedia:Banning policy Article, topic, or editor interaction was created for JUST THIS SITUATION. Let's put this problem to sleep once and for all. To propose yet another format or noticeboard would probably be another waste of time and will NOT work. It will not work because there is no good-faith on the part of the tag team. Once again, I believe it is time for the non-involved administrator to take this action and I sincerely hope he does so. Mugginsx (talk) 10:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

No so fast...

Several accusations have been made by User:Mugginsx. Before this AN/I can be closed a few things need to be cleared up.

First - Who is User:Mugginsx accusing of tag teaming and forum shopping?

Second - Why am I being dragged into this?

Third - Exactly why is User:Mugginsx so interested in handing out topic bans to everyone over this dispute? Has there been any conduct issues that are deserving of such and has User:Mugginsx been party to any of them? --Amadscientist (talk) 11:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe, it was I who proposed a voluntary interaction ban and suggested Gaba p voluntary restrict himself to topics away from those for which they obviously hold strong opinions. The original proposal is buried in the walls of text above. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I love voluntary interaction bans. That is a show of some sort of cooperation if stuck to. I also think it is very civil of you to suggest voluntary bans from the editors instead of asking for community sanctions. I think they should consider it. Odd that User:Mugginsx seems to want more and has also decided to make accusations of further conduct issues. I would suggest kicking this back to the talkpage as a non issue but there is an issue. Editors should not be making other's experiance on Wikipedia so difficult. The fun is gone and the purpose lost. I am going to beg...PLEASE STOP ALL OF THIS! There has to be a middle ground to the content dispute and if it too late...everyone to their own corners and stop interacting...own your own, before admin just drops the hammer on all....and I hope I am not being pushed under that hammer.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist and WeeCurryMonster: In my observation, voluntary bans can work, unfortunately Wee is the only editor to agree. I have thoroughly read the history or histories of this dispute on EVERY page, [Talk Pages], User Talk Pages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/|Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_132 and this Dispute Resolution, [[244], this ANI, the prior negative interactions with Wee, and your comments on your talk page. Within the articles themselves, I have studied the edits and the NATURE of the edits. I have detailed those edits and efforts above. It is clear as I said to the Uninvolved Administrator in the close request that this was a Tag-Teaming effort from two editors who have a clear negative past history with Wee. You are free to disagree but the edits show the truth. I agree that Wee has been outstanding in his efforts to try to solve this but the other involved editors have rejected that order in no uncertain terms, see above and repeated elsewhere here, making Wee's positive efforts to no such avail. The allegations are repeated, the defense is repeated. This has now gone to several noticeboards and discussion areas. Even Reliable Sources Noticeboard has defended Wees sources. It was ignored there and here. It has now become a vicious cycle. Your effort to take to the Committee, which if you will read above, I termed a A well intended suggestion, will not work because there is no enforcement opportunity to stop the tag teaming. That is why we have this ANI and where it should be settled. I will repeat my request for a close but because Wee has outlined a voluntary request (which I repeat has been refused by the tag-tem), I will, in deference to Wee, and since he is the only editor to continually cooperate with the effort to solve this with voluntary sanctions, add to my close request "or voluntary sanctions" and again I applaud both Wee an you for your good-faith efforts. Mugginsx (talk) 12:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

So...why am I here again? Why did you drag my comments and the DR/N to this location and accuse me of trying to void the AN/I? How exactly is your conduct here NOT disruptive. Sorry, but I do think Wee has been outstanding in many ways but this is not something I can say about you. In my opinion you may need to be "discouraged" from further behavior.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Asked thrice and answered twice. Again, this is about the involved editors, not you and not me. Mugginsx (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Then remove the accusations you made and my posts that are not related. YOU dragged me here....remember?--Amadscientist (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

If I may interject. I believe Mugginsx made a genuine attempt to mediate and bring discussions on track but received a rather unpleasant response. Further from comments at Ben MacDui's page, I believe Muggins is a lady but Gaba has repeatedly referred to her in the masculine gender, has continued to do so after being corrected by Mr MacDui and made a number of remarks that Muggins found patronising and sexist. Hence, I can see where her comments about Gaba playing games come from. I don't think it was her intention to involve yourself but equally I can perceive how she might feel your comments were to derail her closure suggestion. If I may suggest the best way to resolve this, is for everyone to chalk this up to a misunderstanding and for that accusation to be struckthrough. As I see it you both have the interests of the project in mind but each has a different approach. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist please go read the comment of mine Muggins found sexist, she (as per Wee's advice I'll be referring to Muggins as she from now on even though I have no confirmation that she is female), even called me sleezy[245]. It's quite bizarre how someone can misinterpret a comment so much (something I consulted with Ben, who agreed[246]). Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist Muggins came out of nowhere to attack me and Langus. Really, out of nowhere. He was not involved in any of the discussions and his first interaction was an attack/threat left in my talk page[247]. I'm still trying to figure out why is he so eager to see everybody but Wee blocked.

With respect to Wee's proposal, I think you might have missed a couple of implications. Regarding his 1st point, an interaction ban does not imply an editor should not edit anymore in an article, it just prevents interaction. Of course Wee knows this, but he seeks to ban both me and Langus from editing completely in any article related to the Falklands since he is actually active in all of them. This is made even more clear by his 4th point which directly asks for a full ban for me in every article related to the Falklands (!); which is just outrageous given that it was him who broke the 3RR and never owned up to it (something he has done before).

His strong opinions in the issue are of common knowledge and at this point I don't think I even need to provide links to prove this. He will not end a discussion until he gets his way, even if, as was the case with the edit that started all this, three editors agreed upon it. If he's not on board with an edit then "you have no consensus" so his word is apparently the final word. Wee's "proposal" is just his way of seeking to move out of the way the only two editors who will go through the trouble of refuting his endless WP:OR and WP:SYN (as several editors indicated) and deal with his WP:OWN attitude trying to treat WP as if it were his own blog.

If the terms are equal, then I fully agree with an interaction ban between me and Wee. I'll note however that, had it been a new editor who behaved like Wee did, he would have been blocked immediately. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 14:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

::*Amended Request for Uninvolved Administrator to close. After reading all of the noticeboards, talk page discussions, etc., on this subject up to and including the most recent comments from both Gaba p and Langus txt, it seems clear that neither is going to stop harassing editor WeeCurryMonster. They both have a prior negative history with Wee and it is obvious that in their view this is pay-back time and Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEYOU. My review of especially User:Gaba p's edits show edits on only two of the Falklands article and those edits are extremely minimal and specifically designed to attack and frustrate Wee's edits, showing no real desire to improve the articles. Many times User:Langus-TxT is backing him up. I do not believe Gaba p has any real interest in the Falklands articles, truth be told. Several attempts to compromise by Wee have been rejected except for the recent offer above by Gaba p. I therefore once again propose either a voluntary or involuntary interactive ban or article ban among them. I hope some uninvolved administrator will see this farce for what it is and propose this solution. I believe it is the only way. Wikipedia:Banning policy Article, topic, or editor interaction was created for JUST THIS SITUATION. Let's put this problem to sleep once and for all. To propose yet another format or noticeboard is Forum Shopping, is useless, is a waste of time and will NOT work. It will not work because there is no good-faith on the part of the tag team. Once again, I believe it is time for the non-involved administrator to take this action and I sincerely hope he does so. The links are provided above and will be provided again by your request. Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

May I request that my real life identity is struck from Gaba's comments please and erased from the page history. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Time to close this dramafest

I remain open to the voluntary interaction ban and mentorship/counselling proposal that I made. I would ask people to note I haven't requested any sanction against anyone and hope Gaba is able to contribute constructively in his claimed area of expertise of Astronomy. For the record, I have strong opinions about following NPOV (I believe my editing record speaks for itself, that is all. Time to close this isn't it, all it takes is a little good will. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

You haven't asked for a sanction? Wee, not a day ago you asked that I be banned for a full year from any topic related to the Falklands (!) in an issue that came to ANI after you broke the 3RR. Your proposal is nothing but an attempt at side-tracking this and shifting the blame on others. You still won't acknowledge breaking the 3RR even though the history of your edits was presented here and it's not subject to interpretations since it is what you actually did. You still won't acknowledge two editors (not counting me and Langus) advised you to stop the WP:OR and WP:SYN. You still won't acknowledge that you reverted 3 times an edit agreed upon by 3 editors. Your strong opinions are related to the Falklands issue, not about following NPOV; this is abundantly clear.

As I said, I have no problems with a fair mutual interaction block between you and me (and letting you off the hook for breaking the 3RR) I do note once again though, that had it been a new editor who behaved like you did, it will be now blocked for at least 48hs. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I have already apologized for any misimpression I may have given that User:Amadscientist was forum shopping. That was never my intent. In fact, upon first read, I referred to his intention to take this matter to the committee as A well intended suggestion. In accordance with that I meant to cross out the corresponding text but was called on an errand and forgot to do so. I am doing so now. Mugginsx (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, I now endorse WeeCurryMonster's proposal for voluntary solutions to the problems among Wee, Gaba p and Langus txt if they can work them out peaceably rather than to imposed sanctions. Hopefully they can come to terms and edit without conflict, which would also encourage other good faith editors to contribute to these articles should they want to. Mugginsx (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

A voluntary interaction ban imposed by one's self does not mean you can't edit an article that the other user works on.....it just means you can't discuss any problems you percieve with them on the talkpage, in edit summary or by e-mail. You simply cannot interact. It doesn't mean you can't object to an edit by discussing THE EDIT and the content, but really guys and gals this is just about not getting along. There are tons of editors that can't stand me. So what. As long as they don't discuss me at all I am fine. Its this back and forth that is the real issue here. The DR/N was just a content dispute. AN/I is about conduct and on this board about an incident itself. I'm not clear what the incident was here. Seriously. At this point there almost seems to be no reason to keep pointing at each other and bringing up requests for bans and blocks if there is no reason to ban or block. I kinda think if there was...admin would have done it by now. Sometimes admin will close threads they deem innapropriate. Some time they will remove them entirely (looks like they took Jimbos An/I for OR out) and sometimes they will give us the time to dig as deep a hole as we can. This is just making people look a certain way to editors who are reading this.

Topic bans seem innappropriate to me at this time and I would hope others agree, but I do think it is reasonable for WCM to request editors refrain from further contact with him on his talkpage, the article talk page and in summary. Just leave him alone and they, in turn will submit to the same voluntary interaction ban and leave you alone. Eventually, in time...things cool down and people get over things and return to civil discourse.......and sometimes they don't. This isn't a perfect world, but we don't need a perfect world to just stay away from each other and I don't think it is an unreasonable request.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I am often very pressed for time during the week. I intend to return here at the weekend with the aim of proceeding to a close. Ben MacDui 08:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps one advantage of this lengthy dialogue is that some of those involved are at least beginning to understand where they may be contributing to the problem.

My conclusions are as follows.

Wee Curry Monster, your civility is commendable but by any reasonable definition you have been involved in edit warring.

Gaba p, despite your apparent disdain for WP:CIVIL, your lack of knowledge of WP:OUTING and your generally belligerent attitude I detect some glimmers of understanding in your latest posts. You have been edit warring. There are ongoing suggestions that you may be one and the same as an indefinitely blocked user. If you are innocent this must be a matter of frustration, but you need to understand why uninvolved users will easily jump to this conclusion. In short, you need to tone it down considerably if you are to have a future here.

Langus-TxT, although your behaviour is open to criticism, you have managed to avoid the excesses of mud-slinging here at least. I have some sympathy with Wee Curry Monster's view that you have a tendency to follow what might be construed as a nationalist POV.

Proposals

All three of the above i.e. Wee Curry Monster, Gaba p and Langus-TxT should seek mentoring.

All three of the above should enter into a voluntary interaction ban on working with one another for three months.

All three of the above are topic banned from working on Falkland Islands related articles, broadly construed, for a period of four months.

All concerned should read WP:BAN carefully. I have no doubt all of you will think "This is not fair. He/they behaved very badly and my sins are less. Why the same outcome?" Fair point, but first of all I lack the time to indulge in complex and nuanced judgements and secondly you should all feel grateful that no blocks are being suggested. A final advantage of the length of time involved in this discussion is that, in my view, a block or blocks would be punitive rather than preventative. If further transgressions are brought to this noticeboard's attention you are unlikely to be treated with leniency again in this regard. Ben MacDui 10:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I will not accept a topic ban and if that is what you intend to impose upon me, then frankly you may as well to resort to blocking me straight away. My reasons:

WP:CIVIL I have remained civil throughout, in the face of frequent provocation and gross incivility directed towards me. The message I get from this is that I wasted my time, I get exactly the same sanction as those who did not.

WP:DR It was I who initiated the talk page discussion, it was I who went to WP:RSN and WP:DRN. Again the message I get is I wasted my time, I get exactly the same sanction as those who had no intention of doing so.

WP:NPOV Again the message I get is that its a waste of time to attempt to follow policy, those with the desire to use wikipedia to advance their own nationalist agenda are treated in exactly the same way as those who acted with the integrity of wikipedia in mind.

WP:3RR Time and again i have had those two editors reverting my edits for no real good reason. Their edits are by their acknowledgement about promoting their own nationalist opinions rather than improving wikipedia. Like all good content editors I care about content and am on the horns of a dilemna. They won't discuss, they WP:TAG team into the article. I've tried seeking admin interevention and following DR but frankly its always dismissed as a simple "content dispute", because usually people can't be bothered to actually look, and you get no help at all. They edit war, I do nothing and the integrity of the encyclopedia suffers, I act but follow DR, stay with the limits of 3RR, use tags to indicate the problem to other editors and I basically wasted my time. I get treated exactly the same way. I've asked you how I could have handled it differently, the lack of a response leads to me to conclude you have no idea but you're proposing a sanction anyway.

All thats going to happen is someone is going to have a party, they've achieved what they've been trying to do since 2007, within days they'll have a new sock puppet up and running and be merrily editing their nationalist nonsense into wikipedia. But the person who behaved with integrity and didn't break the rules is sitting out a topic ban in an area where they have made a huge contribution on wikipedia. I frequently see laments about the loss of good content editors on wikipedia and the failure to recruit new talent. The problem is here, frankly WP:ANI is completely and utterly useless, you see the same thing time and time again. Its obvious to everyone where the problem is, yet the solution is to treat good and bad with the same level of contempt.

If you have neither the time nor inclination to look into the problem, what business do you have proposing sanctions? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes you have to accept the best way may still not be the most pleasant for the short term. But these sanctions are never punative and the topic ban is only for a period of four months. Mentors are a good thing to have sometimes to help better understand Wikipedia. Sometimes they work and sometimes they don't. I think I drove my mentor crazy. But I always kept trying to figure out how to work here and so should you Wee Curry Monster. This just means you understand you need to adjust some of your own behavior. If you can't admit that small amount for yourself it makes things difficult to take. You're just being encouraged not to edit war. But you have to understand it and why it is disruptive all around for all involved. Someone could have just said "I'm sorry." and then settle things down..but it never seemed to get to that and a lot of text flew by and a lot of edits were made.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It is punitive to treat the one editor in the mess who didn't break WP:CIVIL et al in the same manner as those who did. It is not preventative to ban a productive content editor who did his best when being plagued by two disruptive editors. I have asked twice now how I could have done it differently and I still haven't an answer. I rather suspect that is because no one can think of one. I will take direction if someone can advise of a better way, as frankly I don't need the hassle. When I am in the wrong, I can recognise my own failings, I do listen, I will accept my licks. But I absolutely refuse to accept a completely unwarranted and unjust ban in these circumstances - again please tell me what was the point in remaining WP:CIVIL and following WP:DR. This was two editors plaguing and hounding another and you're punishing the victim here. Frankly I don't have to accept injustice, like a lot of content editors before me I can just turn round and say fuck wikipedia, I'm out of here. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Although I did not break the 3RR I understand that even reverting 2 times in a day (as I did) can sometimes constitute edit-warring. I'll try to adhere to a self-imposed 1RR from now on to avoid that. I see how some of my comments might be seen as somewhat aggressive by other editors and, although it is not my intention for them to be aggressive, I'll definitely work on toning down my style. I'll see about getting a mentor to help me with that, too.

I still consider that calling another editor a sock-puppet time after time is indeed terribly uncivil, specially if said editor voluntarily submitted himself to an admin scrutiny of his real life identity, such as I have, and even proposed to have a second admin do the same if he thought it was needed. The constant accusations of tag-teaming, having a nationalistic agenda and disruptive editing don't help either.

Anyway, I hope that by the time this ban is over the three of us can start with a clean slate and leave this episode behind us. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

No

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ludo.jpg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, I cleaned out Category:Wikipedia files that shadow a file on Wikimedia Commons earlier today, but then I decided I should tag the redirects so my talk page doesn't keep getting CSD notices. One of the redirects, File:Ludo.jpg, I made the mistake of also renaming the shadowed image on Commons, and now I don't know if it can be deleted (I guess this is exactly why ShadowCommons images are so problematic). It is impossible to look at Ludo.jpg without seeing Commons:File:Ludo.jpg and being redirected. The only way to fix it (I think) is if an admin breaks the redirect on Commons, deletes the page here, and then fixes the redirect on Commons. Sorry for the confusion.

Also if anyone's interested, the three images left in Category:Wikipedia files that shadow a file on Wikimedia Commons can also be deleted, two as redundant to superior Commons images, and the other as a PUI. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 10:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Ludo.jpg was deleted by RHaworth. I've gone ahead and deleted the Commons copies; left the PUI since it hasn't been listed for two weeks yet. Jafeluv (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aladia Airlines Reverts & Edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi there. Just doing some basic vandalism patrolling & noticed an odd amount of removals & reverts of one specific section from various IP addresses (most originating in Mexico) on the Aladia Airlines page. Not too sure what action should be taken, but these attempts to remove content that is properly cited on the page has gone on since about May 2012. Never seen anything like this. --SpyMagician (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I am going to semi-protect the page for two weeks. If the activity resumes when the protection wears off, please re-apply for longer protection at WP:RFPP. -- Dianna (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate the help. --SpyMagician (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help requested on Supercouple page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On the WP page Supercouple, there is an IP editor who keeps re-inserting the claim that Anne Heceh and Ellen DeGeneres were a "supercouple." I have reverted this three times and he will not stop re-adding this. I'm flabbergasted that such a statement is being allowed on that page, as I have never seen such a ludicrous statement here on Wikipedia. Heche and DeGeneres were not a "supercouple." That is just common sense. The source that the IP editor is using for this rubbish is a gay magazine that Heche gave an interview to in 2001 after she and DeGeneres split and Heche married a man. The interview uses the word "supercouple" once--it's an interview for crying out loud, obviously will exaggerate to promote Heche and is not a credible source in this circumstance. The definition of "supercouple" on this Wiki page is "a popular or financially wealthy pairing that intrigues and fascinates the public in an intense or even obsessive fashion." Heche and DeGeneres were neither of those things. At the time of their pairing, DeGeneres was a comedienne with her own TV sitcom and Heche was a completely unknown actress doing small parts in movies like I Know What You Did Last Summer. DeGeneres was wealthy; Heche was not (she even stated in court documents in 2008 "I have no money" to pay child support for her son during her divorce battle with ex-husband Coley Laffoon). DeGeneres and Heche did not "fascinate the public" but rather make the public dislike them, as Heche has stated on multiple occasions that she lost career opportunities due to this relationship. The IP editor simply has no merit for putting this back in. But, since it keeps getting put back despite my reverting it three time, I am requesting your help. If the IP editor gets other users to back him up, this will probably lead to getting several admins together for a group debate which is just silly and would be a waste of time. I still can't believe any user would stand by such a ludicrous statement. Sancap (talk) 01:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

See what was explained to this user at User talk:Sancap#Sources, including by an administrator. This is a content dispute, but Sancap is failing to abide by the WP:Verifiability policy. His removal of this content is all based on his opinion; it is not policy or guideline-based. We don't get to pick and choose which couples are worthy enough of mentioning. It's not about what we think. It's about what the sources state. There are a lot of sources stating that DeGeneres and Heche were a popular pairing, especially within the LGBT community, and that the media and general public found their relationship intriguing. The source in question calls them a supercouple, which can be considered a subjective term anyway. The text isn't even worded stating that they were definitively a supercouple. It states that they were considered a supercouple. All in all, we follow what the sources state. 110.77.202.106 (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

There couldn't be anyone more unpopular in the LGBT community than Heche! She was accused in the press of being a gold-digger and just experimenting with DeGeneres to get famous. This common opinion was reinforced when she left DeGeneres for a man. Sancap (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• OK, see also my talk page, where (unfortunately) this was first discussed. Some uninvolved admin please close this--it's a content matter, not for ANI but for the talk page--and then, maybe, WP:ANEW. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and patience, Drmies.

Sancap, I realize that you are currently blocked for WP:Edit warring and cannot reply at this time. But DeGeneres and Heche were popular before the breakup. After the breakup is when Heche got all that backlash. 110.77.202.106 (talk) 02:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Self promotion : alexanderjason.com

It has come to my attention that an individual belonging to alexanderjason.com using different user identities that later get deleted is using Wikipedia for self promotion in CSI type pages leaving long winded self promotion od Alexander Jason and Alexanderjason.com . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_animation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Bell_shooting_incident#Trial_and_acquittal_on_all_charges http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_brothers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_reconstruction — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtraelv (talk • contribs) 04:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Csanim (talk · contribs), whom you didn't bother to identify of notify, is indefinitely blocked. Spam is all over the place in that area, including in your own edits, which seem to promote certain sites and persons as well (added in this edit). Drmies (talk) 04:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't intent to promote any particular sites - just put reference links to sites with information. Tried to look for who posted the links but didn't find it. User:Shirt58 was very helpfull sent me some handy tips so I know a bit more now Xtraelv (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

User:UTTAM KUMAR GOUD

User:UTTAM KUMAR GOUD is obviously, from the content of their page, User:UTTAM KUMAR GOUDA, a blocked and subsequently deleted account. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I reported them to SPI, sorry if I was interrupting you Gtwfan--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 08:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably a better place for it. The user (can't really call him an editor) suffers from a serious lack of clue. ADM: Feel free to close this in favor of the SPI. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the user and deleted the user page. If the user pops up again, we may want to see if there's some aspect of that page that could be blacklisted so we don't have to play whack-a-mole. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

24 Game

There appears to be a war going on at 24 Game between User:24guard and User:Uucp, both of whom have called for admin intervention in edit summaries. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

A dispute resolution noticeboard post has been opened. I've made a post on the talk page encouraging the two users to participate in the DRN. No admin necessary unless the attempt at DRN fails. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

South China Sea, again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This has gone on for too long without intervention. This same user has been informed of the rules multiple times, including his talk page, and here. Last time no intervention was made, but a sysop made the remark that if this user was to engage in the same behaviour again, there would be something done about it. Now that this has started yet again, can something actually be done? There's clearly WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on, this user hasn't learned a single thing from last time. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I've made an edit which hopefully will satisfy both viewpoints. Nobody Ent 10:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have been reverted by him. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

See also these edits to Scarborough Shoal made just a short while ago. If blatant POV pushing like this occurred at Senkaku Islands or Liancourt Rocks, the user would have been immediately crucified. So after almost a month of similar nonsense on a multitude of articles, why hasn't there been any action? Does the community have some kind of super secret hierarchy of priority that I haven't been told about? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for edit warring. A review of their talk page shows that they were warned some time ago about it. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Topic ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Topic ban for this editor for any article about the South China Sea, broadly construed?--Shirt58 (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

No. Nobody Ent 17:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

And why not? "No." does not help collaborative discussion of the issue. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Give Arbcom something to do? They love geographical conflicts, I hear. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Can't we apply discretionary sanctions per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it looks like this a dispute about the naming of the sea [248] (South China Sea vs. West Philippine Sea), not of some islands, so it may be a stretch to apply "8A" from there. But you may want to ask ArbCom to enlarge the DS area. Here's the full text:

“ 8A) An uninvolved administrator may, after a warning given a month prior, place any set of pages relating to a territorial dispute of islands in East Asia, broadly interpreted, under standard discretionary sanctions for six months if the editing community is unable to reach consensus on the proper names to be used to refer to the disputed islands.

While a territorial dispute is subject to discretionary sanctions due to this remedy, any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in these topical areas, after an initial warning.

”

So, you'd have to (1) decide that the "editing community is unable to reach consensus on the proper names to be used to refer to the disputed islands" (which may not be the case here since the dispute is about the sea), (2) give a warning (to whom?) that you intend to place the pages under DS. (3) wait a month after doing the previous step (4) place the page under DS (5) proceed to give AE-style warning to the partie(s) and (6) if they don't stop, place AE sanctions. (7) note that the DS placed at step 3 auto-expires after 6 months. I'm curious if this algorithm stemming from that 8A was ever actually used, because it seems so... WP:BURO. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Because the default principle of Wikipedia is supposed to be anyone can edit. So it's up the editor proposing a ban to make the case for it, not those opposed to the status quo. The editor engaged in inappropriate behavior. They've been sanctioned for it, and the sanction is ongoing. Good faith should dictate that the community wait until after the expiration of the block to see if the problematic behavior is ongoing, not that we sit around discussing a pile on of what else we can impose whilst they're blocked. Nobody Ent 22:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Plus as this is their first block we have to also consider WP:ROPE. It's fairly obvious that if they continue the edit war they'll be at strike 3 (You're out!) Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose topic ban based on reasoning of Nobody Ent, Tijfo098 and Barts1a. So glad I included a question mark at the end of the suggestion: obvious bad idea.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Obani

Obani (talk · contribs) has been edit warring over the correct romization of a song title at three articles: Flow (band), Eureka Seven: AO, List of Eureka Seven: AO episodes. Ryulong (talk · contribs) had attempted to engage Obani about the contested rominization,[249] however, Obani altered Ryulong's post to read as if Ryulong was praising them.[250] I reverted the altered comment and left a warning to Obani not to alter another editor's comments again,[251] but Obani pulls the same exact stunt with my warning.[252] Obani then leaves a message on my talk page calling me stupid in Japanese[253] and appears to have left similar messages on Ryulong's[254] and Juhachi's[255] talk pages. This editor is clearly not editing in a way that is constructive to Wikipedia. —Farix (t | c) 00:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks and edit warring aside. It's obvious that Obani is using their fluency in japanese to throw it in your faces and thumb their nose at you. They're obviously fairly capable in english and japanese. Edit warring and personal attacks after a warning should be deserving of a day or 2 off. Blackmane (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI, I think the initial statement that the song and the game are unrelated is correct. I'm not even sure how BlazBlue comes out of the original Japanese, as it's effectively a silent z. Being able to type アホ isn't really an indicator of fluency, either, so that conclusion doesn't seem logical. MSJapan (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

And then there's this. --JBL (talk) 04:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Having now actually gone and read the thing, TheFarix was more precisely called a fool. Moreover, most Japanese speakers will type kanji in a sentence at some point, and the level of colloquialism indicates somebody who "learned Japanese" from anime and movies, because the construction isn't even the usual way someone would use it in speech - the usage is what you'd say to a friend, not to someone who was truly being a fool. So fluency's got notrhing to do with it,　アホ達. :) MSJapan (talk) 04:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Are we going to ban the idiot at this point? He's clearly here only to repeatedly change "Bravelue" to "Blazblue" because the katakana are identical, despite sources to show the song has a different romanization.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

@MSJapan, I did pick up on their usage of the colloquial style, which kinda threw me a little, but depending on how you look at it, that may actually be even more insulting. Blackmane (talk) 10:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Ryulong, is there a way you can cite one of those sources, either in the article or on the talk page? But I'm surprised that he hasn't been given a vacation after changing Blackmane's comments to turn them into another personal attack on me. —Farix (t | c) 12:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, I found one and linked it to the band's page. —Farix (t | c) 12:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Dragon Loy

Dragon Loy (talk · contribs) has been constantly recreating articles surrounding Chester See, which has been deleted and salted, but has since then went on to create the article under other names, such as Chester See!, Chester Yeah, etc. The user has also had a past history of vandalism, as shown here: [256][257]. In the past two days, Dragon Loy has also created some redirects to YTF Legacy, which can be possibly recreated as another Chester See page, as I stated here. (Redirects: Chester Yeah!, Chester Thing, Chester Yeah, Chester See!, Chester Object, See, Chester). I believe that Dragon Loy should be temporarily blocked and the redirects be protected. ZappaOMati 03:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• I deleted the redirects. I was pondering a temporary block, but I think an indefinite block is warranted given the complete and utter uselessness of their edits. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Nothing but blatant vandalism in an attempt to promote a band and evade the salt. An indef blcck is the only thing that will stop this and the edits to associated YTF Legacy (currently at AfD). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• So ordered. (Well, not the salting--it's kind of a bitch to do that with my netbook and it may not be necessary.) Drmies (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Just gotta hope a sock of Dragon Loy doesn't get created. ZappaOMati 17:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

IP editor User:37.59.222.92 seems to be using this address exclusively for the WP:POV point of trying to artificially declare the end of the Occupy movement. This has been reverted by multiple editors including myself. I warned in English to stop edit warring. Now these edits are escalating, trying to erase the sourced evidence that it is still active along with the declaration. Obviously these are well watched controversial articles, the IP will continue to get reverted. But proper procedure should be to block them, right? Trackinfo (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You may want to take it to WP:AN3 - the edit warring noticeboard. --Jethro B 20:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Competence problem?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

محمد1992 (talk · contribs) has been creating multiple duplicates of Huvrat ehl echeik at various spellings, adding sources that don't say what he claims they say, as well as unsourced information that's clearly incorrect, some of it copied from other articles, and messed-up geographic coordinates. (He's also the creator of the corresponding article on the Arabic WP.) He hasn't responded to any messages that I and other editors have left on his talk page and may not understand much, if any, English. The thing is, I can't even find any reliable secondary sources to confirm the existence of the place in question, and I'd like to run the article through AfD to see whether there's any evidence that it meets WP:V. I hate to ask for a block of an editor who's perhaps well-meaning, but a 7-day block would at least give the AfD time to run without my having to continually monitor for the creation of duplicate articles. What do you guys think? Deor (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a 7 day block is in order here, as he has disregarded many talk page messages requesting him to stop. Additionally, if the AfD is closed as delete, the article should be indefinitely salted to ensure that it is not created. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

What AfD? Tijfo098 (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe that would be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guerou vil. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

No. That's something else محمد1992 (talk · contribs) tried to create a year ago (an alleged airport, probably just an air strip around Guerou.) Tijfo098 (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• I left them another note. I personally don't see the need to block yet, but if they fail to respond here or at their talk page, and if they make one more duplicate article or whatever, they should be indef-blocked for incompetence and incommunicativenessability. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• I actually drove through this area (does that count as original research?) and there's nothing at that location except perhaps a couple of outlying buildings which would be considered part of Guérou by any sane measure. The article title is odd - typographically it doesn't look much like the name of a Mori town though some quirk of transcription could be at play here. There's certainly nothing on my copy of Michelin 741. I don't see how it could pass WP:N unless somebody suddenly conjures up some sources. bobrayner (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Also checked my ITM map of Mali, which shows southern Mori along the border, and again it shows nothing east of Guérou. However, I'd argue that our coverage of Mauritania suffers from very serious systemic weaknesses so it might be worth one last attempt at guidance (if these edits were on a topic where we already have great coverage and skilled editors, I'd argue that a new editor like this could only be a net negative) bobrayner (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Indeed. Compare Kiffa with fr:Kiffa. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• OK, this discussion is clearly going nowhere. I've gone ahead and created an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huvrat ehl echeik. I guess I'll just monitor the editor's contributions to prevent further creation of duplicate articles while the deletion discussion's running. Any comments are welcome there, but this thread can probably be closed. Deor (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Interwiki spamming

Dear admins, 68.3.67.81 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • http • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks ) is spamming Wikipedias in obscure languages with stub articles about actors. Example contributions from diq-wiki. This is causing various bots to spam interwiki links on these articles here and on every other Wikipedia the articles exist. This is a great cross-Wiki problem, previously seen, I believe, on Avril Lavigne. I think this needs to be discouraged in some way. Elizium23 (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The address was blocked 19 days ago, for 6 months. That is about as discouraging as admins can do. If the ip's changes haven't already been reverted, you should act as you see fit. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this editor is blocked from the English wiki, but by proxy he is successfully spamming the English wiki using the agency of Interwiki bots. I understand that perhaps en-wiki admins are powerless here, so perhaps this is the wrong forum. Surely you don't expect me myself to venture out into weird foreign Wikis where I don't understand a word and pursue this editor through CSD/AFD/ANI processes repeatedly on each Wiki. The best I can do here on en-wiki is request each page be fully protected for a short time in WP:RPP, but surely you agree that this is a last-resort solution, especially for the sheer number of articles we are facing here. Perhaps a Village Pump forum is more appropriate for this particular problem. What do you suggest? Elizium23 (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

m:Talk:Spam blacklist, if you can think of a pattern for exlinks can be meaningfully blocked; m:Meta:Babel for a more general discussion. Small, neglected wikis are indeed sometimes a problem, for which meta is the best place to object. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: started at m:Babel, but moved to m:Stewards' noticeboard for steward attention.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I've globally locked the IP for 6 months. MBisanz ^talk 00:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Stillstanding

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

calls me a troll. repeats accusation in response to warning. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

And what should the admin response be? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 07:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Clearly tell him that this is unacceptable. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to bait me by saying that admins don't need to give reasons?[258] I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Baiting? I merely told you how I interpret "discretionary". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I note that this is not a denial. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

??? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Still responded to your comment, "Here's the bottom-line answer: admins do not have to explain themselves. That's why they're called discretionary sanctions." Neither comment was elegant. However neither rises to a level that it requires administrative action and I suggest we close this discussion thread. TFD (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

So "troll" is OK. I thought it was on the level of "asshole" or "motherfucker". But OK, I'll keep that in mind. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I redacted my comment, unasked. Seb retaliated by coming to my talk page and threatening to abuse his sysop bit by blocking me. Now he's doing this. So, yes, it's well worth closing. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright, enough is enough. It's time to put this issue to bed as it's obvious that it's starting to get out of hand. Check your talkpages. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 07:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Unless I'm mistaken (and it's certainly happened before) User:Seb az86556 is not an admin. [259]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

you're not mistaken. Does that mean I can be called a troll? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You need to apologize for accusing me of baiting and "drama-whoring" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I posted my response to that here Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 07:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow... one of them did not take it well... Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 08:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.[260] I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Barts, you were previously topic banned from ANI for unhelpful commentary and only recently has that been rescinded, please reconsider your commentary as it is only inflaming the situation. Your postings on Seb's and StilStanding's talk pages are proceeding along the same vein as what Worm warned you for a mere 2 weeks ago. You do not need, nor is it up to you, to police issues. Dare I suggest that liberal helpings of tea a couple of gracious apologies to each other, a hand shake and letting this storm in a tea cup subside? Blackmane (talk) 08:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Blackmane, it's ok. I didn't take offense at Barts1a's posts. He was trying to help. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

And I appreciate that you were able to see that I was trying to help. It's a trait that surprisingly few have! (As I am finding out...) Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 09:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User page hijacked?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've been helping a new editor, RomfordReject (talk · contribs), who seems to be genuinely contributing in good faith to articles related to a small British football club. Today, I found that his user page appears to have been hijacked by another user, Mauris Griffin, who posted a copy of the deleted article Brandon Vee [261]. This is completely outside RomfordReject's editing area. By following various "what links here" pages, up pops the following editors who have created (now deleted) articles on various subects relating to Mauris Griffin and the companies he owns:

• MaurisGriffin (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Bevgould (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• BMXE1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) now blocked
• Zekel Health (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) now blocked

Between them they have created (and re-created):

• Mauris Griffin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Zekel Healthcare (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (owned by Mauris Griffin)
• BMX Entertainment Corporation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)(owned by Mauris Griffin)
• Brandon Vee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (a BMX Entertainment artist)

The deleted article Zekel Healthcare is still posted at User:MaurisGriffin/sandbox, User:Bevgould/sandbox and User:Bevgould. I emphasise that I do not think RomfordReject has anything to do with this. I know "SPI is thataway", but this also entails possible user page hijacking and WP:FAKEARTICLE. The Brandon Vee article also had a fair amount of copyvio in it. I will notify all the users mentioned here. Voceditenore (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that RomfordReject doesn't match the other accounts and I'm not sure why MaurisGriffin hijacked his userpage. Anyway... I've blocked MaurisGriffin and Bevgould as obvious sockpuppets of Zekel Health (the oldest account) and deleted the remaining sandboxes/userpages with the promotional/copyvio draft article. Bencherlite^Talk 11:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks! Voceditenore (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Topic ban appeal and BOOMERANG for the banner

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:TParis has taken it upon himself to monitor the 2012 election articles so as to enforce the community probation, and I really wish he hadn't because he's done a poor job of it from the start, showing a mixture of partisanship and simple incompetence. I've complained bitterly about it and gone so far as to demand that he recuse himself.[262] Recently, messed up again, issuing a bad ruling that led to an edit war.[263].

Now, I haven't edited Paul Ryan in days, but one of the changes made during that sequence of edits went too far; it violated our sources by siding with Ryan's version of the facts instead of attributing them clearly. Given that it's a biography, I reverted it.[264] To reiterate, I made a single revert (1RR) on a BLP so as to remove an edit that violates Wikipedia standards. My reward? A topic ban. Oh, and while he was at it, he went nuclear on three others.

Not a single one of us deserves this draconian punishment. I consciously keep myself to 2RR, so I'm used to avoiding reverts, but 1RR goes too far. A 1RR limit means that any two changes within a 24-hour period could be interpreted as a violation and used the basis for a block. As a result, it becomes very difficult to edit these articles at all.

I strongly recommend looking at the edit history. Note how it all started with Homunq making a good-faith edit to change the article to match what the talk page shows agreement for.[265] This led to a knee-jerk revert by Toa Nidhiki05 [266], which TheTimesAreAChanging valiantly reverted back to avert a full-blown edit war, explicitly citing TP's ruling.[267] Unfortunately, Arzel piled in with a pair of whitewashing edits [268], which I reverted. At this point, TheTimesAreAChanging put aside continued his earlier good sense and ignored BRD by reverting back by compromising.[269] Then the Thermonuclear Banhammer of Overreaction came down on all concerned.

Well, almost all. As Arzel pointed out, this whole thing could can been avoided if TP hadn't encouraged the edit war with his bad ruling. The problem here isn't four editors; it's one admin. I believe that TP has shown that he is unfit for the task he has volunteered for and should revoke any punishments and step away to allow more competent admins to fill his role. If he won't recuse himself and he can't stop making a mess of things, he needs to find a new hobby. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll let the community decide the rest, but I will point out that I've never singled this editor out (I noticed he gave no diffs of partisanship) and I have also given ample warnings to all four editors. The rest of this nonsense is an open and close case.--v/r - TP 23:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue here is that you overreacted in "solving" a problem that you created. Your partisanship and singling out are the background information for why you've already been asked to recuse yourself. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Recommend resolving this situation after November 6. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone else find it worrying that an admin clearly involved in an RFC on the talk page of the article in question is suddenly handing out topic bans without prior discussion? I also note on the general sanctions page: "Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by any uninvolved administrator from articles on probation and related articles or project pages." Does this mean that the topic bans should be nullified as they were not handed out by an uninvolved admin? Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

In my defense, the reason that SS reverted Arzel was "We can only use Ryan's explanation if it's fully attributed to him". Therefore, I changed the wording from "acknowledged" to "stated" (I considered "claimed", but thought Arzel would object) so as to attribute the assertion more directly to Ryan. In both cases, I was attempting a compromise. Like SS, I have not been editing the article very frequently. I thought TP had made it clear that Homunq's revision was acceptable, so I reverted an attempt to remove it. Homunq certainly seemed to suggest that TP's ruling was the main reason he insisted on re-adding the material after Arzel removed it the first time. As far as I can tell, SS did not do anything even remotely objectionable, even if he has done objectionable things to merit warnings in the past.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Can you describe how I am involved? WP:INVOLVED says admins that act in an admin capacity are not involved. I've never given an opinion on the RFC, I've only ever commented on civil discussion and hinted at how consensus gets established. Feel free to describe with diffs where I have not done exactly as I describe.--v/r - TP 00:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you have been uninvolved as a content editor,[270] but on the other hand, you have knowingly waded into this very dispute on the talk page,[271] which makes you involved as an admin. Finally, you have been directly involved in a personal dispute with StillStanding-247 on the same talk page.[272] Therefore, when the evidence is examined, this makes you involved IMO. In other words, you should not have been the one to enforce this topic ban, and this action could be interpreted as a misuse of your position since you also enforced full protection.[273] Given the above, you really shouldn't be involved here, and one could see this as a form of gaming the system. Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "involved as an admin." Admins have to act in an admin capacity. If it makes them involved, then no admin could act at all unless they canvass another admin who has not watched the situation. Your logic is circular. Secondly, I am not in a dispute with StillStanding. He has time and again attempted to describe my impartial involvement as a vendetta against him as an effort to prevent me from being able to hand out a sanction but I have never taken the bait.--v/r - TP 00:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There is such a thing, as "involved as an admin" refers to WP:INVOLVED, shorthand for your involvement as an editor acting as an administrator. In other words, you were involved in a dispute on the talk page with the editor you topic banned. Is that clear? Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

That's where your logic fails. I've never made a single edit on that talk page in any dispute not in an admin capacity mediating a dispute. That doesn't make me involved. Linking to a list of edits isn't evidence. You should try reading the edits themselves.--v/r - TP 00:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You've been personally involved in a dispute with the editor you topic banned since at least September 18[274] and that dispute also carried over on to the talk page in question during that time. Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Involved doesn't work that way. TParis provided information, Still disagreed. That isn't a dispute, that is a difference of opinion. More importantly, it wasn't about the content, it wasn't a prior sanction, it wasn't even remotely a substantial disagreement. It was a trivial difference of opinion. That is not the threshold. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You are ignoring the fact that TParis and SS have been feuding for more than a week, with TParis threatening to topic ban him during that time while taking the side of many of the editors editing on the opposite of SS. That is involved. TParis was not a neutral party here. Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not ignoring anything, you are just interpreting the policy differently. Telling someone they need to be civil, informing them of the consequences, those are de facto administrative responses to a situation. If that disqualified an admin from acting, then editors should just scream at any admin and then say "You are involved! We had a disagreement!". It doesn't work that way. The real conversation is below anyway, like I said, if there is a policy reason that bars him (and WP:INVOLVED does NOT even bar him if he is involved, so you are beating a dead horse) then I will be happy to hear it, below. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Let's stick with the burden where it belongs. What is the policy reason for topic banning SS here? Viriditas (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Speaking only to the issue of TParis being WP:INVOLVED or not in the discussion, in this case it would be accepted that he is not. He is not taking a stand on the content, he is acting in an administrative role, clerking and mediating, a helpful and neutral role. This is common, and in fact is done by non-admins sometimes as well. This would not disqualify him from taking administrative action. Protecting the page, adding content during page protection, (ie: proxy editing) are not considered involved edits, they are maintenance issues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Question: are these edits consided to be done purely in an administrative context? Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 00:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) How are they not? In one, I said it's not appropriate to take the RFC as a consensus yet, and in the other I was suggesting that Arzel calm down because an RFC is not a freeze on content. How does that involve me?--00:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TParis (talk • contribs)
• Yes. He was providing instruction about the process of RfC and general accepted norms. It wasn't choosing a side on the content. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I commend Barts1a for providing diffs of edits that TParis actually made, but so far as I can tell they are all in an administrative role. In those diffs (and in his other edits that I've seen) TParis seems to be enforcing civility, talk page guidelines, making notes about procedure, helping editors work through their differences, warning people, and basically moderating the discussion. I've yet to see a diff where TParis takes one side or the other. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Please tell me you are kidding. I've provided numerous links to discussions showing TParis threatening SS with a topic ban and taking the sides of his opponents. Viriditas (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• TParis threatened a lot of people with blocks, including SS's "opponents". I still haven't seen an actual diff of TParis taking somebody's side on a content issue. (I may have missed something...this discussion is growing faster than I'm comfortable keeping up with, so I apologize if I did.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• My interest is to cut through the emotion and get to the issue which was raised. To be clear, I've reviewed and his actions on the page would be considered administrative, not involved. Of this I am sure. Being involved doesn't prohibit an admin anyway, if another admin would have done the same, so that isn't the issue to begin with. Trust me or don't, but that is how it will be considered. The issue is "Was TParis within policy to make the topic bans?" I'm all ears if someone wants to explain why he wasn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oh, for the record, the article is under discretionary sanctions, per a decision at WP:ANI previously, so normally an admin would not make this type of a topic ban unilaterally, but it is authorized (subject to review) in this case. This is the review. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing any review, only rubber stamping. How in the world does this edit justify a topic ban? The user has not edited the article in 13 days,[275] and prior to that, the last time they edited the article more than once was on September 3. I'm not seeing any justification for a topic ban. Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
    • What you are doing is being rude. I haven't given an opinion one way or another on his topic ban, and you are assuming bad faith and telling people they are rubber stamping because they don't agree with you. I have stated that the policy is very clear that he isn't considered involved, and he isn't. The only question is: Are his actions outside of policy in any way? You talk about how Still hasn't edited the article, but neglect to mention all the talk page edits, which is misleading. And frankly, I get along with Still just fine, check his talk page or ask him, so I certainly don't have it out for him. But I still insist we get passed the incivility and look at the policy involved, which is the purpose for the review. But the issue of INVOLVED isn't a valid one, as he wasn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
      • What is the justification for the topic ban? One edit in 13 days? That's ridiculous. Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• Regarding WP:INVOLVED: What Dennis said, this is clearly a non-issue, and time spent arguing about it is time wasted. Regarding topic bans: I'm all in favor of handing out topic bans like candy to all partisan editors until the day after election day. Also, I'm in favor of giving a really large benefit of the doubt to any admin willing to get their hands dirty monitoring these pages. Also, there's no excuse for the recent edit warring. So I won't second guess these topic bans, they should stick. Regarding page protection: I don't really have a gigantic problem with it, per GoodDay below ("A protected article, will force discussion (at that article's talkpage) & lead to consensus), but I suppose if the topic bans are upheld here, then the protection as a result of this particular edit war isn't necessary. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• For anyone interested, here is the authority granting discretionary sanctions, so the question is only if his actions are authorized and proper under this decision. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• I found this little gem in the arcives... [276]. Why the sudden change of heart? Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 00:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• That was before the discretionary sanctions were in place, by 10 minutes as a matter of fact. That he closed it is meaningless, as closing is reading consensus, not voting, which he didn't do and wouldn't disqualify him anyway. Again, you are beating a dead horse. I will only spend so much time explaining the policy before I give up all hope in your willingness to understand it. Your point is moot. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

While we're talking about the Paul Ryan article...

...I see that it's gold-locked again, which flies in the face of the consensus we had to just let sanctions work. Now, I'm fine with gold-locking it 'till kingdom come (i.e. the election), but I was outvoted last time. Therefore, I propose shortening the gold-lock to 72 hrs and reverting to indeff (yeah, folks, it's time for indeff) semiprotection, with the caveat that another one or two of these will get it gold-locked until the election pbp 23:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

A protected article, will force discussion (at that article's talkpage) & lead to consensus. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

When dealing with a controversial BLP, the options are either locking down the article until it is no longer controversial or permitting admins to actively engage in enforcement of policy. Given the above discussion, it appears that individuals will not accept active enforcement of policy, therefore full protection appears to be the best course of action. If StillStanding and Barts were willing to withdraw the above thread, I'm sure Tom would be willing to reconsider the full protection. MBisanz ^talk 00:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Please describe, in your own words, how this edit justifies a topic ban and supports the claim that SS "will not accept active enforcement of policy". He's barely edited the article in the last two weeks. Viriditas (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if another admin would have done the same thing. Some would, some wouldn't. The only question is whether or not he acted properly, within policy. The purpose of a review isn't to second guess the admin, it is to insure he acted properly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that discretionary sanctions are authorized on Paul Ryan and related articles, and that TParis is not "involved" in editing this article and so is eligible to impose the sanctions. That brings us to the merits of the topic-bans. I'd appreciate TParis's clarifying why the topic bans he imposed include the article talkpage as well as the article itself. From my arbitration experience, I know that sometimes there are reasons to ban from the talkpage as well as the article itself, while other times it makes sense to allow editors to continue discussion on talk while allowing others to do the actual editing. (And other times we forget to specify, which leads to endless arguments at AE, so we try not to forget any more.) I'm interested in that particular aspect of your thinking. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to post something very similar. Although it's a hell hole, I think progress is being made, albeit slowly. I suggest converting the topic ban to only cover article edits. On the other hand, I agree with Floquenbeam that topic bans should be handed out like candy to partisan editors and thus suggest that the topic bans should be widened to include article space edits to election related articles, broadly construed. Allow discussion to take place, but require edit requests to make article edits. Sædon^talk 01:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

As as a pretext, I want to say I'm not trying to throw edits to get them to stick even though there are a lot of them here. The edit warring over the marathon issue dates back quite a ways. All edits involved have tried to push one of two point of views: either Paul Ryan is a liar or he made a simple mistake. The merits of either side arn't what matters, I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat. What matters is the on going edit warring the POV pushing: [277]([278][279] Hector reverted himself, preferring not to get involved in an edit war)[280][281][282][283][284][285][286][287][288][289][290] I would normally consider calling someone a liar to be a WP:BLP issue except that there are so many sources that say that so I ignored it as far as WP:BLP goes. But it was still POV pushing both ways. Both sides wanted to characterize the situation to their preferred point of view. As far as topic banning them from the talk page, I felt their behavior had become disruptive and battleground. These diffs arn't all encompassing, they only span the last 3 or so days. Starting with Arzel (Battleground): [291][292][293], TheTimesAreChanging (Battleground, NPA): [294][295], StillStanding (Battleground, Synth, POV pushing): [296][297][298][299][300]. Honestly, Homunq is the only one who I can see not banning from the talk page and if I am wrong on Homunq then I apologize and he should be allowed to edit the talk page. I think his editing on the talk page has been cordial and polite. My only rationale for banning him from it was to be consistent, fair, and even.--v/r - TP 01:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It's rather ironic that although the statement is currently neutral, the cited article (Huffington Post) is titled "Ryan's marathon lie". There's no evidence that it was a lie. Just like 4 years ago, the editing restrictions need to be in place, and anyone violating them needs to be locked out of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

TParis, it sounds like you are saying you topic banned SS for making one edit in 13 days because you personally disagreed with what he said on the talk page. I don't see how that justifies a topic ban, but it does sound like you are too close to the topic and instead, you should have notified an uninvolved admin who didn't have a history of disputes with the editor you topic banned. Why was SS topic banned? We should depend on hard evidence, not the whimsy of admins who are personally involved in disputes with the accused. And, that's not my opinion, that's the opinion of the accused, supported by diffs. Viriditas (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• As for Homunq, he has already piped in supporting the decision [301] to topic ban him, and only disagreeing on TheTimesAreAChanging's ban, who hasn't protested but did say that he thought he was making an approved edit. Those two I would trust to TParis's own review. As to even numbers on both "sides", I don't see how that should matter. I don't see any procedural issue with the topic bans and whether or not another admin would do it isn't an the issue. We aren't here to second guess the admin or declare what WE would do, only to insure his actions were consistent with the authority in the discretionary sanctions. It seems they are. I suggest that the topic banned parties themselves, without the posse (who are doing you no favors), give it a day or two and talk with TParis on his talk page if they want him to reconsider, as I've found him pretty reasonable. The fact that we passed discretionary sanctions to begin with should indicate that the threshold for topic bans is very low, much lower than under standard conditions. Was it a harsh topic ban with a low threshold? Perhaps, but all discretionary sanction topic bans are and the community cleanly supported using these sanctions. So if they are harsh, they are equally so to everyone. Again, there is no justice here, only solutions, which are sometimes ugly. It is political season, tempers are high, we don't need to drag it into here and start calling each other names. Leave that to the politicians. So sleep on it, and revisit it with TParis when everyone is a bit more calm. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Woah. Wait a minute here... I didn't read carefully enough, and didn't realize all of us are banned from the talk page too. That, I do consider to be an overreaction. It's within TP's rights to ban us from talk, but I think it shows poor judgement. I also strongly disagree with putting the article under protection. The point of hair-trigger bans is so that people back off and you don't need protection. So I would support making the protection last as short as possible.

As for the matter of SS's inclusion in the (legitimate article-space part of the) ban: no, they didn't "deserve" it for a single edit which did address a real BLP issue. But I just don't see a single-article ban as being the end of the world. There's no article that simply can't live without any specific editor or four. As I said prior to these bans: the atmosphere at the article was getting out of hand, and I'd rather see a little too much enforcement than too little. And SS did show poor judgment in reverting, rather than editing for compromise, on a section where an (minor) edit war was already active, so they're not purely an innocent victim here.

Anyway. My 2 cents is that TP overreacted, but not by enough to make it worse than if they had underreacted. Homunq (talk) 03:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Why was a single, reasonable edit used as an excuse for a topic ban?

That's the bottom-line question. What, precisely, about the single edit was so horrible that it deserves a topic ban for making it? Be specfic, TP. Show us that you're being reasonable, not banning everyone in sight to make up for the edit war you caused by your own ruling. I'm sure we all want to hear your reasoning. Go for it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• I think the point is that it wasn't just about the article edit, it was about the environment there. Look, some admins would have done what he did, some would not. Was what he did within the sanctions allowed? Yes. Discretionary sanctions are typically harsh by design. I sincerely suggest just giving it a day, discussing it with him on his talk page, and everyone keeping calm. Dis. sanctions tend to be very reactionary (go visit the Israel articles....) but things just need to cool out a day or two. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Would a neutral and competent admin have done this? Explain why. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a neutral and competent admin would have done the same; I do so with some frequency in other topic areas. The reason is because it sometimes gets to the point where we have to shit or get off the pot when it comes to imposing some kind of standard in these discussions; the only ways to do it in such an acrimonious environment are to block or ban. You haven't been an overall disruptive editor, but your edit was clearly disruptive in the context of the article, so the most logical choice would have been to ban you from the article. If I thought you had any case regarding TParis' involvement, I would gladly impose the same restrictions under my username. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• That isn't the question we ask here, and adding competent is a loaded question. The question is "is it allowable under current policy?" Yes it is. Is he the only one that would have done that? No. Would I? Doesn't matter. Everyone knows I'm off the reservation when it comes to sanctions anyway. TParis and I don't work in the same areas, but I have crossed paths with him several times and found him to be pretty reasonable. I wouldn't say this if it wasn't true. This is why I'm suggesting you wait a day or two, let everyone calm down, we can talk about it on his talk page. If you want, I will get in the loop, I really don't mind. But on a technical level, yes, he was authorized to do this. So taking my advice is the best possible chance of making it a short topic ban rather than a long one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no "short"; the election is coming. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, the article won't be going anywhere once the election is over. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

What Blade says is correct, and that is the perspective we have to take. I would really doubt this article will give or take away any votes for anyone. We aren't a news site, and the goal of protecting the page is to try to get it neutral, not to advantage anyone. You overestimate the importance of this one article, I fear, and the statement itself isn't making you look neutral. Sleep on it, tomorrow is a new day. It is already an hour passed my bed time on the east coast. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

What Blade said is obviously false. The neutrality of Paul Ryan will mean next to nothing the day after the election. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Now that's just losing sight of our goal here. Setting aside for the moment that Paul Ryan is likely (for better or worse) to be a notable politician for years to come (seriously, do you think people stopped reading the article on Sarah Palin after the 2008 elections, and do you think neutrality no longer matters there?), the goal of Wikipedia is to build and maintain articles for the long haul. And finally, I'll expand a bit on something Dennis said above; Wikipedia is just a website. You're not going to influence anyone using Wikipedia, and when you start getting more drawn into the debates on the article than you are the RL debates, it's a sign you need to step back. Editing areas you're emotionally attached to is hard; this was far and away the hardest thing I've ever written because the book never stops tugging at my heartstrings. I was able to do it because I always remembered the book is far more important and impactful than anything I'm writing on some website; same concept here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Fine, why don't you show the way by editing only articles concerning badminton or perhaps some other topic that you have zero interest in? In the meantime, I am still waiting for an answer. Am I going to get it or are we not even going to pretend that there is one? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You're missing my point; I didn't say it couldn't be done, only that it's difficult to do and very easy to get caught up in things. As to the reason, it's been given to you; that you don't like it isn't really something anyone can do anything about, because I've never seen someone happy about being topic banned. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

If I had done something vaguely wrong, I might feel better about it. But, as I've asked repeatedly, what exactly was so horrible about this edit that it's the basis for a ban?! I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

All right, let me put this in the simplest terms I can (outside perspective, but I've done this enough times in other venues that I think I know what I'm doing). The Paul Ryan article has been overrun with edit warring, as is typical for these sorts of articles around this time, and one particularly large fight in the article regards the mountain built up around the marathon time. Instead of using the talkpage to discuss the wording/sourcing, you, among other editors, went in and reverted, which one could reasonably conclude would incite further edit warring. On a typical article, this probably wouldn't be a major problem, but on very contentious articles like this it's akin to attempting to put out a fire with a hose attached to a gas line; it's just about guaranteed to make the problem worse. The sanctions were designed to prevent that cycle from repeating itself; I did this not very long ago myself for an article plagued with similar bickering over neutrality. That's why. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

StillStanding, do you really have zero interest in any topics other than Paul Ryan? I haven't even read the Paul Ryan article since I've read enough other such articles to have decided long ago that they are worthless due to partisan editing. Paul Ryan in particular is so high-profile that Blade is right that the contents of the Ryan article won't affect much of anything. Dennis Brown's suggestion of disengaging for (at least) a few days is good. I think we all know that there are serious problems with Wikipedia's handling of this type of issue, but people like TP are doing their best to put out fires where they arise. Ideas for more substantive solutions have been debated endlessly for many years so I don't think any sudden improvements are in sight. It's something one simply gets used to after a while. 67.117.130.72 (talk) 03:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

This has little to do with Paul Ryan; the ban extends to all articles involving the 2012 election. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Blade) You only removed, rather than seeking compromise or discussing. So though your edit was far from horrible — in fact it made the article fit BLP better — you're not blameless, because you could have achieved that while being less contentious.

And then, also, you were in the wrong place at the wrong time. So you got banned. If you were truly 100% innocent here, you'd have a case; but you're not.

By the way, I totally agree with you that the article is more important now than it will be after the election, and that there's nothing in policy to prevent us from taking that into consideration in our actions. But there are a lot of other articles that are the same way. You're capable of doing good work within 1rr so I'm sure you can help on them. Just give this one a rest.

Although I absolutely support you getting your talk page privileges back.

Anyway: don't take it personally. You really can't know TP's motives, and assuming the worst only hurts yourself; only gets you less sympathy not more. Homunq (talk) 03:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

(post edit conflict, responding to SS): You are on 1rr on all the 2012 election articles. You are only banned from Paul Ryan. If you had been banned from all 2012 election articles, that would indeed have been completely out of line of TP. Homunq (talk) 03:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

With TP around, 1RR is equivalent to a ban. And the issue isn't whether I'm perfectly innocent; nobody is. The issue is whether I'm guilty of doing anything worthy of a topic ban. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought this was about continued edit warring. A warning, then a topic ban after continuing the dispute?--Amadscientist (talk) 03:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

This time, you got caught in the crossfire. If TP starts chasing you around and banning you, that would be out of line of them, and I (and I expect others) will pursue de-adminning them.

You're pretty good at doing what you think is right regardless of the consequences. So, ignore TP, and do that on any article but Paul Ryan.

Also: just as 3rr means you get slapped on the 4th, 1rr means you don't get slapped until the 2nd. Unless you jump into an existing edit war as in this case. Homunq (talk) 03:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist, look for yourself; I didn't edit-war. I reverted exactly once because of BLP. TP has yet to even offer a pretense for banning me, other than being peripheral to the edit war he created.

Homunq, 1RR is not like 3RR. As it is, I restrict myself to 2RR, because of the lesson Lionelt taught me. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

"A "one-revert rule" is often analogous to the three-revert rule as described above, with the words "more than three reverts" replaced by "more than one revert". " It also means you should discuss the first reversion on talk, but you are not obligated to wait for a response. Homunq (talk) 11:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The reason you (ISS) and others got topic banned is not because of a single edit, but a pattern of disruption. Despite TP's urging, the participants did their talking in edit summaries instead of the talk page. And you really should be more careful with your choice of words above. Implying that someone is incompetent without evidence is a personal attack.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a single thing you said has merit. TP did not cite a pattern of disruption; that's just your story to cover for his goof. As for the talking on the discussion page instead of edit comments, this is my first edit to the article in days, while I've continued to participate on the discussion page. As for incompetence, he's showing it in spades by creating an edit war and then punishing everyone who was anywhere near it. So, as I said, no merit whatsover. But thanks for trying. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You became an editor on 22 July 2012, and the first admin warning to you came 39 hours later.  By 18 September, you had racked up 15 admin warnings.  On 9 September you were being discussed before ANI for a topic ban, I was involved with you at Wikiquette, and editors on your talk page were discussing an RFC/U for you.  On 17 September, TP reported that you were edit warring on the 2012 Presidential Election articles, and instead of blocking or banning issued a "final warning" regarding your editing, and said, "do not take my warning for granted."  You scoffed and said, "In which case I'll curse you out and delete my account."  As per WP:CIR and WP:NOTTHERAPY, you need a four-month vacation from Wikipedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I can only echo what I said above about users I've sanctioned and recommend someone close this down before we end up with a WP:FOOTBALLPLAYERWHOSHALLNOTBENAMED. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, ignore the piling on from the usual suspects and don't let it distract you from the bottom line: TP has yet to explain what was so horrible about my one edit that earned me a topic ban. I don't think he will because I don't think he can. I'm calling his bluff. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's the bottom-line answer: admins do not have to explain themselves. That's why they're called discretionary sanctions. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

this (edit summary) is completely unacceptable. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Our standards of acceptability must be vastly different. I find the statement "admins do not have to explain themselves" completely unacceptable, and frankly, intolerable. There was and continues to be no justification nor any rationale for a topic ban. There you go, I just explained it. Viriditas (talk) 06:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• I don't have any comment towards the situation, but admins are accountable for what they do, that's a Wikipedia policy: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." So yes, admins do have to explain themselves. - SudoGhost 07:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

SudoGhost, for the record, I asked TP hours ago and have yet to hear a clear explanation of how my single revert to support WP:BLP merits a long, broad topic ban and 1RR. I look forward to his response. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No, what's unacceptable is to ban someone for no good reason. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You don't seem to "get" it. Admins don't need a reason nor do they need to explain their actions. Move along, citizen. Viriditas (talk) 06:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I opened this report because I questioned the wisdom of TP's ban. TP has refused to address my concerns at any level. He made one comment, which was both false and irrelevant. He has not shown himself since I refuted that comment.

Contrary to what some people think, admins are obligated to explain themselves. They are servants of the community; janitors armed with mops, not kings with scepters. If TP will not offer any basis for this ban, I politely request that a more reasonable admin overturn it. TP made a mess again; use your mop to clean it up. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment This is the second time in as many months that TP has been shown to make a mistake then attempt to blunder his way through instead of apologising and reversing his error. He decides to issue punitive punishments (as in the case with the Rollback privileges being revoked) and then starts changing his reasonings. Admins are here to serve not subjugate. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 07:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

While I understand the topic is controversial, I do not see that the administrator has provided sufficient reasons for the topic ban (1RR in thirteen days and no claim that talk page editing was disruptive). TFD (talk) 07:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

TP seems to have invented a new rule where discussing things properly on the talk pages can get you topic banned, and as he is a personality round here the admin-corral has hitched up the wagons to defend him. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 07:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, TP is grossly violating WP:ADMINACCT by refusing to explain his ruling. I can't imagine why any admin would support that sort of refusal to take personal responsibility. TP's actions make all admins look like dictators, since their silence is tacit support. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Formal request

I've formally requested that TP return here to explain himself, as Wikipedia policy requires, so please leave this report open to give him a chance to clear his name. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 10:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There's no policy that requires TP to continue to participate in an ANI. He's already explained his reasoning, in general, to the community; he's not required to explain it to every editor's personal satisfaction. Nobody Ent 11:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Has he really explained his reasoning? Unless I've missed something (very possible; this debate has become quite lengthy) it doesn't seem as if TP has given a straight-forward explanation as to why he topic-banned SS. – Richard BB 11:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The broad ruling of the general sanctions state that any edit which "broadly construed" is viewed as contributing to an edit war is subject to blocking. By that rule SS could have been banned along with the rest of us. However, TP could have resolved the situation from the beginning by not letting Homunq make contentious edits to the page while the RfC was ongoing. Basically Homunq personally ruled that the RfC currently was such and made an edit based off his current view of what consensus was. I have never been involved in an RfC where this was a standard. By this action alone, TP has allowed this sequence of events, worse yet he is defending Homunq creating a bad precedent going forward. Arzel (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, I explained to you on my talk page just now that your ideal setting was impossible. I cannot arbitrarily make up new rules. What you wanted isn't supported by policy. You're relying on your experiences to say something isn't allowed but you haven't been able to find it in policy. And clarifying that the policies don't say what you wanted them to say doesn't make me liable for yours or anyone else's behavior. You're upset because I explained to Homunq and you that policy doesn't prohibit his edit. How is that my fault that the community has not sought to work WP:RFC out to be the way you want it to be? Blocking Homunq or topic banning him at the time would not have been supported by policy and the community would've looked significantly less favorably upon it. If, after my explanation, you are still upset, then I would invite you to join me in a discussion on WP:RFC about making the exact change you'd like to see happen.--v/r - TP 15:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I expect our Admins to have WP:COMMONSENSE regarding RfC's for contentious issues. If the goal is to simply blindly follow policies to the word then there is little need for Admins. I did not ask for Homunq to be banned or blocked. All I asked is that the RfC be allowed to work itself through before editing of the section. As I stated on your talk page, my current frustration with you have nothing to do with the actual content, it is the terrible precedent you have set for future RfC's. RfC's are a tool to help solve disputes, not to cause them to escalate. You had the ability to keep the process under control. You failed to keep the process under control. You created a precedent where any editor can come into a RfC, count the current !votes, rule concensus and start the edit war again. Your failure to see this is probably the most annoying aspect of this whole situation. Arzel (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I find the way the entire editing process which led to this very bizarre. I personally think it was reasonable for Homunq to add in material which was weakly supported by the ongoing RfC given the policies, but I can see how it can be argued either way. I was very surprised to see that you then added material which uses a less-than-ideal source and characterizes the event in a more negative manner (it implies that he knowingly gave false information rather than mispoke). I personally would have suggested bringing it to the talk page first since it clearly would be contentious, but given that the page was unprotected it seems OK, if perhaps a poor choice. I think SS was in the right to remove the information per WP:BRD. If anything I think TheTimesAreAChanging made a poor choice to then restore the material and may have justifiably drawn sanctions for that. As for bans being handed out, I would not make the same choice (were I an admin), but I think TP was reasonably justified. a13ean (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

My response

In clear WP:IDHT behavior after several warnings not to edit war and an article probation, StillStanding seems to think reasonable edits that undo other user's preceeding edits are an exemption to WP:EW. He also seems to think there is a rule about only making 1 edit personally in an edit war despite the fact that I've informed him that despite a single revert, when you are part of an edit war with multiple people, you are still warring. He's not at all innocent unless you just don't bother looking at the diffs and take his word for it that he's innocent. He's also engaged in personal attacks: [302][303]edit summary[304][305][306][307][308][309][310]. He games the system by reverting or striking through his personal attacks after he's made them so he cannot be held accountable for them [311][312]. He is a clear POV pusher [313][314][315][316][317] and WP:SYNTH issues where he suggests because Romney is against Obama's cybersecurity plan that he must be against cybersecurity. More on gaming later. Immediately after his first warning, StillStanding began accusing me of singling him out despite the fact that I notified the other editor involved of the article probation per the requirements at the article probation: " Uninvolved administrators can independently impose sanctions, including escalating blocks or topic bans of up to three months, provided the individual has been notified of the terms of this scheme and possible sanctions" (emphasis mine). He continued to try to bait me at Talk:Paul Ryan and my talk page: [318][319][320][321][322][323][324]. His [[game plan is to involve any uninvolved admin so they cannot impose sanctions on him. My crime isn't singling him out, which he hasn't shown a single diff for, my crime is taking an interest in patrolling the topic area; any other admin would've become a target (I even suggested that he invite another admin if he felt I am biased). Despite his comment that I lack thick skin, I think I've shown extreme tolerism of his critical comments of me, not risen to the bait, and acted appropriately. He is simply upset his plan failed to engage me personally as this ANI thread has demonstrated I am not involved. Now he has resorted to the argument "Ohh well he won't explain himself" despite the fact that I did exactly that when asked by Newyorkbrad. That it is not to his satisfaction isn't important. I am accountable to the community, not to him personally. Of all of the editors, StillStanding is the most disruptive. So it concerns me when someone like User:Viriditas comes along without a single diff supporting his claims and is only arguing on StillStanding's behalf and no one else. Of all of the folks involved, StillStanding has the weakest claim of innocence. It's utterly absurd and Viriditas should take a much harder look at diffs before getting involved in ANI threads in the future. My question is, at what point does StillStanding get a WP:CIVIL block for all of the personal attacks against me here?--v/r - TP 17:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Ohh, and going to bed definitely (and then to work) is not a gross violation of WP:ADMINACCT.--v/r - TP 17:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Final

StillStanding, no one is happy when they are topic banned, so I tend to be patient to a large degree in these discussions, but at this point you have to realize that a number of administrators and non-administrators alike have come in and supported TParis's right to institute the ban. This doesn't mean they would have done the same thing, but they realize that the sanction is consistent with the discretionary sanctions passed, and was done in good faith. There is a lot of jumping to conclusions here and it isn't benefiting anyone doing the jumping. If anything, the bias in your comments about the election and persistence is saying he hasn't explained when in fact he has might be actually demonstrating a pattern that validates his decision. I've tried to give you a path forward, tried to explain that discretionary sanctions are by their nature strong and quick and that if you would simply calm down and demonstrate that your intention is to work on the article in a fair and unbiased way, that it would be fairly easy to talk him into lifting the sanctions after a day or two. I've offered to participate in that very discussion. You don't have to like it, or agree with it, only tolerate it, as it has been brought here and a consensus reached. Bludgeoning this after a consensus has been established only hurts your credibility here. Admins serve at the pleasure of the greater community and are accountable to that community, but not to individual editors. If the community is satisfied as to his explanation and participation, then he has fulfilled his obligation. If I've learned anything from having the bit, it is that no matter what you do, someone isn't going to like it and there is no way to take action that everyone will approve of. Instead, an admin must do what is allowed within policy, what they think is right, and what the community accepts as being within the range of acceptable actions for each circumstance, which he has. I won't repeat my previous advice on your talk page, and only say that it serves you best to consider it. It spite of the fighting and debates, for all reasonable purposes, this review is over. Now we move forward, hopefully in a positive fashion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this should be closed as WP:DEADHORSE now. If StillStanding is still unhappy, he can appeal to ArbCom. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Dennis is, as usual, very well put. However, I'll be shorter to make it clear. Tom's actions have been reviewed by the community and not found improper. Continuing to challenge them at this point is disruptive. StillStanding's remaining courses of action are to accept the sanction, appeal to Arbcom or be blocked to prevent further disruption. This is the only warning I will be giving to him to stop being disruptive regarding his sanction. MBisanz ^talk 13:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Shut up or I'll block you! Well done! Joefromrandb (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Disruption in the form of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT can be as damaging as participating in an edit war, sometimes even more damaging when it needlessly soaks up large quantities of the community's time. MBisanz ^talk 15:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Is it just me, or would StillStanding have had a 10x better chance of getting his ban overturned if he had just left it "why the topic ban, I only made one edit", instead of going out and attacking TParis? pbp 15:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • It's just you. TP gave longer rationale above at 01:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC) But it's so easy on ANI to swamp the thread with rhetorical questions... -- Tijfo098 (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• My opinion is that TP made a good topic ban. Judging from the above, the edit summary "deprive troll of drama" is also not inexcusable, albeit not optimum. Carrite (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Account encouraging illicit sockpuppetry, edit warring, and POV-pushing

Snowy26 (talk · contribs)

Snowy26 has been encouraging another (thankfully inactive) user to edit war and POV-push against the accepted scientific fact of evolution, saying that he will do so once he's autoconfirmed, and encouraging the illicit use of sockpuppets and off-site correspondence to do this. Dennis Brown has explained that this is not acceptable behavior.

Snowy26 has stated that the purpose of his account is to edit-war and POV-push fringe and anti-science material. It needs to be made perfectly clear that this is unacceptable, and I know that me simply telling him that is only going to encourage him. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reason this doesn't end "Indef, abusing Wikipedia as a battleground and disruptive editing?"--Tznkai (talk) 04:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Not really, figured that'd be understood. Although, come to think of it, a checkuser might be a good idea, as he's at least implied the existence of sleeper accounts. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks on the block, Tznkai. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You might want to check in atWP:SPI. If Snowy26 shows some semblance of getting a clue, someone can go ahead and unblock him/her/whatever.--Tznkai (talk) 04:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Obvious troll. Sædon^talk 06:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Point of Information: Over the last couple months Conservapedia's mainpage has made a renewed push to wage war on evolutionist ideas and those who espouse them. Administrators should be advised to have their ban hammers ready for POV warriors on this topic. Carrite (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

University of Melbourne

Engaged in prolonged reversion of apparent copyright violations, which had previously been discussed at the article's talk page. I attempted dialogue and warned the primary user of the issues, to no avail and, until lately, with no response. I've requested page protection and user blocking, and received a 3rr warning from an admin for my troubles. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

As well, my takeaway is that we don't mean what we say re: copyright violation [325]. Silly of me to take the guidelines at face value. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it looks like I might have misunderstood the extent of the copyright violations - will reassess now. For next time, a note on my talk page would probably be enough to make me look twice. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ok, it looks like the earlier reversions (e.g. [326]) definitely included copyright violations of the source linked to on Talk:University of Melbourne. I did a spot check of the more recent restoration of the Academia section, and it is hard to tell if it is copyvio or not because it has been around long enough that all the Wikipedia mirrors have already mirrored it. If someone can find the original source that would be useful. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• IP, I think you have a valid complaint here, regardless of tone. I wish I had time to look more closely into it, but it seems to me that there is a right and a wrong side in this exchange, and I hope other admins will have a peek. I gotta run off for now, but I wanted to thank you for your efforts in helping keep the place clean. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • On Talk:University of Melbourne I've added links to a couple of further places from which there seems to have been copy and paste copyright violation. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for investigating this - I've reverted the article again and left an apology on the IP's talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• I have blocked Moriarty.L for 48 hours for copyright violations. The anon editor at 76.248.149.47 was perfectly right. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • With appreciation to all of you. My dudgeon has stabilized. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism, no redeming edits by User:208.84.212.1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:208.84.212.1 has persistently vandalised the project, as you can see from his talk page User talk:208.84.212.1 and randomly checking his user contributions. He's been warned endlessly on his talk page. His last three edits included vandalism on the Maya calendar article [327], unsupported accusations of sexual abuse against an individual which were rolled back as a BLP violation [328] and vandalism of the article malware [329].

Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• That's a frequent problem with public institution IPs like this one. Might be time for a schoolblock, maybe a month? De728631 (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked 1 month. In the future, AIV will usually get a quicker response. – Connormah (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jew Bagel

Floquenbeam bears repeating: if you're worried about something obscure, don't render it nonobscure by posting it on the drama llama board. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Dear wikipedia administrators. I'm not sure where to put this but I really feel it has to get out. While looking for projects about the Jewish people and culture I came across this picture, Image: Jew Bagel.jpg. It is supposedly givein as an award for contributions to Wikiproject: Jewish culture. Maybe I am overreacting but I feel this is a little racist and think other people might find this a little racist as well. I mean imagine if we put a star of david above a dollar (or some other currency) bill that would be a similar instance of racist stereotypes. Also please keep in mind as well that bagels also have virtually nothing to do with Jewish culture outside of the Ashkenazi community. Maybe some of you won't agree with me and that is fine but I do not feel this picture is an appropriate reward.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC) If you feel the image is inappropriate, you should nominate it for deletion. Administrators don't have any special position in determining what is or isn't appropriate content on Wikipedia. The image is not widely used. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC) So... you (Rainbow) are offended by an image that is transcluded on one inactive page, and your solution is to post it on the most watched page on the whole project? If this image is not offensive (btw, it isn't), then posting this thread is silly. If it is offensive, then posting it in this thread is silly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC) Can someone tell me what to paste to nominate for speedy deletion?-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC) You should follow the procedure described at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Note Resolved Rainbowofpeace (talk · contribs) There's more to this than bagels. The OP is an editor looking for a fight. Rainbow came very close to being permanently sent away, 3 days short of a year ago, for making legal threats. Also, the editor doesn't like being called "he" but won't indicate how to be called. That's another battleground area brewing (again). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC) Also, the editor is accusing me of "defemation". I don't know what that is, but most likely it's either a claim that I'm trying to remove a woman's femaleness, or it's some attempt at a legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC) "Oh, a wise guy, eh?!?! :eye gouge: Carrite (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC) N'yuk! Rainbow appears to have agreed to a file rename instead of necessarily deleting, and has moved on to some other topic. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Zrdragon12's edit warring and personal attacks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Zrdragon12 just reverted User:Nguyen1310 7 times in History of Vietnam since 1945 to restore excessive prose in the lead, after I went out of my way to propose a compromise. (His sources are copied and pasted last names from books he never read). As can be seen here, after I proposed this compromised version of Phoenix Program, Zrdragon12 reverted me 4 times. His changes were based entirely on original research: "The sources state that people were murdered,thrown from helicopters, raped so pretty much arbitrary." I had earlier asked him to take it to the talk page, but he refused. He has previously accused Nguyen of running a "hate campaign", stated that I was "wrong as usual", claimed that "They really should not let Americans write anything on wikipedia", mocked Nguyen and referred to him as "your buddy", told me that "no one really cares what you think", and called User:Philip Cross "touched", "delusional", and "paranoid" on his talk page. Just to harass me, he followed me to War in Afghanistan (2001-present) and reverted me three times, only to admit he was wrong when challenged by another editor. Frankly, I find his behavior to be rather irrational; there have been cases where I have asked him to be more polite, and he has openly said that he will not; on other occasions, he has edit warred over minor issues to prove some kind of point about how biased other editors are. Nguyen1310 could also be blocked for edit warring; heck, I'm skating on thin ice given the amount of times I've battled with Zrdragon these last few days--although I tried hard to propose compromise versions or mediation. But regardless of the consequences, I cannot hold back any longer. I've tried reaching out to Zdragon on his talk page, but I stopped after he accused me of "harassment". Zrdragon's edits are based almost entirely on original research. Virtually every article Zrdragon has touched (if not literally all of them) has devolved into edit warring-- first, with Philip Cross; now, with Nguyen and I. These pages are becoming a circus, yet the more he is reverted, the more he is convinced that everyone else is out to get him. Zrdragon is just not doing things the way they are supposed to be done here at Wikipedia, and I feel as though ANI is my only option--he truly does not seem to understand that he is doing anything wrong! Thanks,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

While writing this, it appears that another massive edit war involving Zrdragon and Nguyen broke out at North Vietnam.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Zrdragon apparently feels confident that he can get away with it because Nguyen has been blocked several times, and I was just topic banned over an edit I made to Paul Ryan. He has accordingly tried to threaten and intimidate us. As mentioned, however, I believe the circus has gone on long enough.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Zrdragon also wages wording wars on numerous articles, like changing the word "communist" to something else, when referring to communists themselves, like here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vietnam_War_casualties&action=history. Zrdragon goes on viscious attacks on other editors on her edit summaries, against myself, TimesAChanging, Philip Cross. Zrdragon also deletes sourced, valid content that she doesn't approve of, like here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vietnam_War_casualties&action=history, here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_Vietnam&action=history, and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Vietnam_since_1945&action=history. Myself and TimesAChanging, in efforts to try to curb all this, have done several reverts to try to undo the POV content being added (in the articles i already provided links to), and all the deletions going on, and thus unintentionally and unwillingly engaged in edit wars with Zrdragon. Zrdragonengages in the removal of sourced content, removal of sorces themselves, and other users had to put up with stringent attacks from Zrdragon, none that i have ever seen before during my whole tenure at Wikipedia. Nguyen1310 (talk) 07:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually I was only blocked once, by the way, for similar causes with another user, like here. Nguyen1310 (talk) 07:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

User:TheTimesAreAChanging and his buddy User:‎Nguyen1310 have been running a campaign against my sourced edits for over a week now. Just this one page shows what is going on.Edit Waring.User:‎Nguyen1310 has constantly deleted my sourced material for no good reason as can be seen by just that one page link.He does it on other pages as well with his mate User:TheTimesAreAChanging, as can be seen here edit waring and here edit waring. and here edit waring. This has gone on for a while now and I am not happy about it, I agree that I have also been edited waring but mostly just to get my sourced material into the article.Also User:TheTimesAreAChanging keeps leaving me messages accusing me of all sorts of things but does not put in that he himself is edit waring with feeble excuses as can be seen here [330] These two editors are upset that the pages they work are not kept to their biased line as far as I can work out and do not like truthful sourced items to appear on them,User:‎Nguyen1310 more so than User:TheTimesAreAChanging .Here is where Nguyen runs off to the others talkpage to ask for help and then his mate turns up and starts reverting my sourced edits, [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheTimesAreAChanging&action=history] I would like someone to go thru all the edits and see what feeble excuses are used to delete things by these two. It is pretty much laughable but again I have also been guilty of edit waring.Zrdragon12 (talk) 07:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, i went to other users in requests for mediation and intervention. That's it, plain and simple. I encourage any admin to go through ALL of Zrdragon's edits in her edit history, as well as the differences in versions btw her's and mine's and TimesAChanging, they will be very, very self-explanatory. Also look at the talk pages of the articles she's been on. These will all give you a clear picture of her mission here. Oh i forgot to say, Zrdragon is discriminatory against Americans, like when she said that "They really should not let Americans write anything on wikipedia" here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Vietnam_since_1945&offset=20121001045011&action=history, and against Vietnamese from South Vietnam, like when she called Ngo Dinh Diem "your man Diem as the corrupt dictator he was" here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Vietnam_since_1945&action=history, or how historian Hoang Van Chi, also from the South, was called "a proven liar", or how you kept discriminating South VN for being capitalist here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Zrdragon12&offset=&limit=500&target=Zrdragon12. There's also an ongoing investigation on Zrdragon, who was supposedly banned indefinitely for also violent POV editorship under the username "citylightsgirl" and has now created an another account under another IP, both definitely from Europe.Nguyen1310 (talk) 07:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I am a he btw, told you that before but for some reason only known to yourself you call me a her, is that supposed to be an insult.I really do not know what you are on about by me being against people from South Vietnam because I called Diem a dictator, he was a dictator.What on going investigation are you on about? I think you have been reading too much gossip.Just like to add why has User:TheTimesAreAChanging reported me for edit waring but not his mate Nguyen1310 . Anyone???? Zrdragon12 (talk) 08:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I acknowledged that some of Nguyen's edits have been problematic.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, in all due fairness he did. This whole week has been a complete nightmare, i'll be frank, and i'm very exhausted about this whole rut. Nguyen1310 (talk) 08:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

BTW, keep WP:NOTTHEM in mind. It appears Zrdragon's only defense is that if he should be blocked, so should Nguyen. Regardless of the soundness of that position, I take his stance to mean that even he acknowledges his behavior was indefensible (which is, admittedly, a good sign).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you tell us why you are reporting me first off for edit waring but not your mate? Also I have made no defence, I have just stated what happened. You sure like to makes things up. I admitted what I have done. Zrdragon12 (talk) 08:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

So you agree that you should be blocked, with or without Nguyen?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Because you are the center and cause for all these edit wars and disputes that have been going on, on content that never had problems before. Your deletions of things inputting of POV, editor attacks have caused this whole mess in the first place, otherwise I and TimesAChanging would never engage in edit wars. Why the hell do you keep referring to myself and TimesAChanging as mates?? I see Zdragon fabricating content and being dishonest about her activities, and stalking editors' edit histories to revert their changes. Nguyen1310 (talk) 08:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Nguyen and I are not "mates". There's nothing "suspicious" about him coming to my talk page to ask for help and advice.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

This all very amusing. You started off your report here mentioning that I reverted your mate 7 times not one mention that your mate was deleting sourced material as were you. Removal of sourced material09:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zrdragon12 (talk • contribs)

I "removed" nothing. I bent over backwards to try to discuss the issue and then moved the excessive text to the appropriate section. I also asked you why you were citing random last names; you replied that since you had copied them from Wikipedia, they were valid. I can't speak for Nguyen, but since you apparently agree that you should be banned for reverting him 7 times, I guess that's settled. We'll just have to let an admin decide if anyone else should be punished.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Here you are actually reverting it not once but twice Removing sentenceRemoving sources. One of the sources there is Stanley Karnow's book A History of Vietnam which you consider not worthy.You said and I quote "Obviously not valid sources ".I did copy them from wikipedia,they are used in the Diem page to source the exact quote I used,so they are perfectly fine on that page but not according to you on the other page.You then reverted it yet again Reverted and again Reverted and again Reverted and again Reverted It is funny how your links and claims of not doing anything are very easily turned over by going to the exact place where you reverted it. Zrdragon12 (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Did any of you notice that so far nobody uninvolved has reacted to this at all, and that as you go on discussing in your little fishbowl, you quickly exceed WP:TLDR limits? What about taking a breather for half a day? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

:: Here's a semi-involved comment. While looking at his edits for a possible sockpuppetry case (which turned out not to involve him) Zrdragon12 did strike me as a tendentious far-left editor, FWTW. It seems there's no shortage of those in Wikipedia, so carry on like nothing happened. And I can also confirm that Zrdragon12 has been editing as various IPs for quite some time. I don't know if that's a violation of any previous sanctions on his putative previous named account as alleged by others above. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC) (Incorrect statement by me, let's not drag this any further. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC))

And History of Vietnam since 1945 looks like it hit 12RR or so. I don't understand why it hasn't been protected. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Protected now. It probably wasn't because nobody noticed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You can confirm that I have been editing as various IP's for some time now? Well lets see your evidence then. You got it, show it.You are just making stuff up.Zrdragon12 (talk) 11:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you denying that Special:Contributions/88.104.219.158, Special:Contributions/88.104.218.11, Special:Contributions/88.104.220.15, and Special:Contributions/88.104.213.87 are you? Tijfo098 (talk) 11:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC) (I was wrong about that. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC))

Well being as none of them are my IP address I guess it is not me. Is that really the total evidence for your dubious claims? I mean really? You are obviously on a mission and not a moral one. Zrdragon12 (talk) 11:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected on that. I see you've been reverting [331] Special:Contributions/88.104.221.99, so the set of IPs is probably someone else. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

...something that even a casual reading of some of the diffs seem to confirm. Or he/she has a bad case of split personality. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Misread/Deleted. Zrdragon12 (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The Aberdeen/Tiscali IPs are editing disruptively at times, e.g. implying that the CIA bombed the Marines barracks in Beirut [332]. The sudden appearance on Sep 12 of a high-edit-volume account (Zrdragon12) in the Vietnam area (another stomping ground of the 88.104's) did cause some confusion. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC) (Let's avoid further tangents here, this thread is long enough as it is. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC))

Just face it you rolled up here claiming that you can confirm that I have been editing with a list of IP addresses and you were wrong. You should not make claims that you cannot prove. 11:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zrdragon12 (talk • contribs)

Everybody can make mistakes. He has fixed his. No need to rub it in. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I am so sorry, the guy comes on here and accuses me of doing something I have not and then when proven wrong does not even apologise and I am the one who is not supposed to rub it in? Is this how things work where you come from? Sorry but they do not work like that where I come from, we apologise to people when we are wrong.Zrdragon12 (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I will just point out that User: Nguyen1310 is off again on his reverts Reverts and accusing me of being of editing with different IP's which is funny as the guy using that IP is reverting my pieces.Zrdragon12 (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring diffs

Zrdragon12 vs Nguyen1310 reverts: [333][334][335][336][337][338][339][340] (last one is a revert of [341])

Wrong. If you cannot even get all the reverts why bother stated that number 70 is the last one when it is not 7172 Nguyen1310 and there are more from me and more from him. If you are going to do a job at least do it well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zrdragon12 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Nguyen1310 reverts: [342][343][344][345][346][347][348] [[349] -- Tijfo098 (talk) 11:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

TTAAC: [350] [351] [352] [353] [354] [355] (revert of [356]) [357] ([358] + [359]) [360] [361] [362] [363]

Zrdragon12 vs TTAAC reverts: [364] [365] [366] [367] [368] [369] [370] [371] [372] [373] [374]. -- Tijfo098 (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You missed one..Nguyen1310 reverts..Glad to see you taking an interest.. lol..btw I should just point out that there are already links to those pages in the above thread. Zrdragon12 (talk) 11:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I have updated the lists, thanks. You guys are the most prolific edit warriors I've seen in recent times. Is that 16RR in a day? I lost count. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Very nice but they are already link to in the complaint and responses from me and another editor.Zrdragon12 (talk) 12:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Not so neatly laid out. And those are in just one article, History of Vietnam since 1945. There is more of the same in Phoenix Program, albeit fewer. You guys should really read WP:3RR. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

and why should they be so neatly laid out? Any admin can click on the ones already provided in the original complaint and replies and just lick thru them backwards and forwards or do you think they should click on each individual one you have posted? That is click,then close and then click on another one then close and then click on another etc etc..Zrdragon12 (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

More edit warring at Phoenix Program:

• 88.104: [375] (revert of [376]) [377] [378]

• TTAC [379] [380] [381] [382]

• Zrdragon12 vs. TTAC, 88.104 and Stumink ([383] + [384]) [385] [386] [387] [388] [389] [390] [391] [392]

I think 88.104 should be checkuser'd given their clear involvement in an edit war with other registered accounts. I notified the IP and Stumink of this discussion. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There is more of the same at North Vietnam as well (Zrdragon12 vs Nguyen1310 mostly) and at War in Afghanistan (2001–present) (Zrdragon12 vs TTAAC). Vietnam War casualties is another massive edit war (Zrdragon12 vs. Nguyen1310 plus TheTimesAreAChanging and occasionally 88.104) The last 50 changes there are mostly reverts, and even among the 50 edits before those there are plenty of reverts. The last 100 edits there are since Sep 30. I'm not paid enough to list all the diffs. I thought those graphs about admin numbers declining were bollocks, but apparently not. (Is there an 100RR prize somewhere? It reminds me of "100 missions to be flown Mm Hmm Mm Hmm 100 bridges to be blown Mm Hmm Mm".) Tijfo098 (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

NB: I see Floquenbeam blocked Zrdragon12 and Nguyen1310 for a week (each) at 15:28-9, 1 October 2012 (UTC) -- Tijfo098 (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked Zrdragon12, Nguyen1310, and TheTimesAreAChanging for a week. That much reverting across that many articles is way over the top. If I looked deeper, I suppose I'd find that one was slightly more at fault than the other two, or one was being more or less uncivil than the other two, but frankly I have no reason to bother to look deeper, all three were acting disruptively, after being warned to stop (or most annoyingly, after they warned others to stop edit warring). If IP's start to show up to continue the wars, then the pages can be semiprotected and the socking accounts indef'd. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You're half Solomon and half Alexander. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV editing re Akanland / Ghana by User:MarkMysoe

Akanland is not a country, but a region in Africa. This editor is systematically editing articles relating to this area to remove or reduce mentions of Ghana. He has been asked not to do so, and his only response is to remove the messages from his talk page. There has been some discussion at WikiProject Africa. He is continuing - [393] (removes all mention of Ghana from infobox). There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject_Akan, which he founded on 5th September. His removal of the mention of the country from so many articles seems disruptive. PamD 12:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

N.b.: PamD previously confronted MarkMysoe on his talk page about this pattern of editing. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Akanland is a region in Africa. If it will be more suitable to add Akanland with Ghana, rather than Akanland alone, then that is what I will do in the future. There is not a problem with founding a WikiProject such as Wikipedia:WikiProject_Akan with the intention of expanding the Akan subject, and inline with Wikipedia's guideline of contributing. In no way have I been intended on any destructive editing as PamD suggested. I archive messages and archived PamD message to keep talk page short and organised after reading a message. MarkMysoe (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I've just realised that the link I included above to demonstrate the problems was the wrong link. This is an example - "Ghana" does not appear in the infobox any more, so a reader looking for quick information as to where this place is will not get an answer. The map is labelled as "Location of Jaman District in Brong Ahafo" - though the outline map is of Ghana. This is not helpful. The earlier edits included a football stadium and a football club from which you removed all mention of Ghana. PamD 22:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Xe2oner

Xe2oner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above user has been disruptively editing articles related to Sri Lankan Colleges (i.e., elementary through high schools). There is a multi-year debate going on about the proper names of these schools. The status quo is that we use the names proposed by User:Cossde, primarily because he is the only one to ever give reliable sources. On the other side, there has been a long list of IP addresses and "new" users who routinely pop up; sometimes they just edit war, sometimes they also insult Cossde, but they never actually discuss the issues on the article talk pages. The thing is, a few of them have provided references, and there has been some productive discussion on Talk:Panadura Royal College (where a few non-disruptive editors have actually left comments), enough to make me believe that, in fact, Cossde is actually wrong in the content dispute. But because the other side basically refuses to talk, and just edit wars across multiple different articles, there's really nothing we can do other than block them. Thus, I present to you the above user; a simple look through xyr contribution list, along with the warnings of left on xyr talk page, will show the refusal to discuss and widespread edit warring. I'm somewhat involved, so I shouldn't block myself. I've tried, here and in the past, everything from kindly explaining to threatening to begging for an actual discussion...but when I opened a sitewide discussion on WP: WikiProject Schools, no one showed up. At the moment, I think Xe2oner needs to be blocked, and if anyone has any smart ideas about how to actually solve the long term problem, I'd be open to hear them. One final, additional place worth looking is User Talk: Qwyrxian#Rajakeeya Maha Vidyalaya, Telijjawila, which I think points out the key problem with Cossde's POV. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem with reliable sources when it comes naming articles as been high lighted in [394]. Cossde (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Cossde has said the above even more clearly on my talk page, in this edit. In a way, this is good, because it clarifies that we can no longer rely on Cossde's analysis either. Cossde has here demonstrated that he is unwilling to work within the clear rules of Wikipedia wrt naming of places and organizations. There is never a case when we ignore RS because of some real world rationale. Wikipedia always follows RS to determine the names of things. We name the article and stick with a primary name when we can determine it, but when there are multiple names in RS, we are bound by WP:V and WP:NPOV to describe all other names that rise above WP:FRINGE (which I believe these do). I think that in addition to considering direct sanctions (block for editwarring) against Xe2oner, we may also want to consider a topic ban against Cossde for Sri Lankan schools, to last only until such time as he is willing to follow WP policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

As I have mentioned in [395] in Qwyrxian talk page I have no problem in use of RS. But as I pointed out [396] the RS in this case local news papers are inconsistent when it comes to naming schools, the same paper uses different names in different articles. Therefore what I say is that we can not depend on local news papers as RS for school namings even though they are RS in general terms. Cossde (talk) 07:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Just because User:Cossde chose BBC to ref the name of Royal College, Colombo:

• instead of the local news papers, doesn't automatically grant User:Cossde a wested right to stop or delete (Speedy deletion request per A7) other Sri Lankan schools that are funded by Government of Sri Lanka (or Sri Lankan Government) having word ROYAL in it's name. Colombo Royal College too is funded by the Government of Sri Lanka.
• doesn't mean that Royal College, Colombo is situated in the City of Westminster in United Kingdom. Real life Common sense.
• doesn't mean other Sri Lankan schools that has word ROYAL in it's name that has got absolutely zero references from BBC are insignificant, illegal or not prestigious and therfore not qualified to have a wikipedia article even with credible real life references. This is totally against Wikepedia's heart.
• if the name is ambiguous (User:Cossde self made rule to have only one school in Sri Lanka that has word ROYAL on it's name) in real life sources (ie: well established mainstream local news papers such as dailynews, Sunday Observer etc) then it must be ambiguous on Wikipedia (majority of Sri Lankan school articles do not have a refernce from BBC) too. Does that mean those schools are not significant to be on WP ?. Reliably sourced info can't be excluded to fulfill the self made rule of a single editor. This is totally agaist WP policy.
• whole of this argument or word war (what ever you call) about word ROYAL is self created by User:Cossde to fulfil and promote an individual's own (who is not being able to live with real life) agenda but it is an insult (others will have to seek consent from User:Cossde and then debate) to other intelligent WP editorial community as a whole. (Xe2oner (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC))

Well, the two of them are talking a little now on Talk:Royal College Colombo...the problem is that both of them are still edit warring across the spectrum of effected articles. Seriously, if no one else is going to act, I'm going to have to take an IAR restriction to WP:INVOLVED and block both of them, because this is very disruptive to the encyclopedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

As of writing, neither of them have edited in a while; if they start up again, I'll handle blocks. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is still going on. I've just commented at Talk:Royal College, Colombo#College name. Perhaps they do not realise that justifying a position on a controversial topic at the talk page does not give them some sort of right immediately to adjust the article to agree with their position? - Sitush (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Ouch. I'm blocking both of them for 31 hours to give them some time to cool it; I'm not exactly optimistic about them being able to, but it's worth a shot. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Xe2oner, has began removing cited content, carrying out pov editing and WP:OR in articles Royal Preparatory School, Kumaratunga Munidasa Mawatha, India House (Colombo). Cossde (talk) 07:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Sock puppets on Criticism of atheism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Slickarette (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Slickarette2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• IhategodYEah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

We've had a recent influx of socks on Criticism of atheism. They seem to pass WP:DUCK, so SPI is probably not necessary. I'm going to be requesting temporary semi protection on the article to stop the edit warring at RfPP ([397]), but if an uninvolved admin could take a look at the editors in question and take any steps they deem necessary, that would be helpful. I'll post a notice to all 3 shortly. All 3 notified.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Drmies has blocked these three usernames. -- Dianna (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Xe2oner

Xe2oner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above user has been disruptively editing articles related to Sri Lankan Colleges (i.e., elementary through high schools). There is a multi-year debate going on about the proper names of these schools. The status quo is that we use the names proposed by User:Cossde, primarily because he is the only one to ever give reliable sources. On the other side, there has been a long list of IP addresses and "new" users who routinely pop up; sometimes they just edit war, sometimes they also insult Cossde, but they never actually discuss the issues on the article talk pages. The thing is, a few of them have provided references, and there has been some productive discussion on Talk:Panadura Royal College (where a few non-disruptive editors have actually left comments), enough to make me believe that, in fact, Cossde is actually wrong in the content dispute. But because the other side basically refuses to talk, and just edit wars across multiple different articles, there's really nothing we can do other than block them. Thus, I present to you the above user; a simple look through xyr contribution list, along with the warnings of left on xyr talk page, will show the refusal to discuss and widespread edit warring. I'm somewhat involved, so I shouldn't block myself. I've tried, here and in the past, everything from kindly explaining to threatening to begging for an actual discussion...but when I opened a sitewide discussion on WP: WikiProject Schools, no one showed up. At the moment, I think Xe2oner needs to be blocked, and if anyone has any smart ideas about how to actually solve the long term problem, I'd be open to hear them. One final, additional place worth looking is User Talk: Qwyrxian#Rajakeeya Maha Vidyalaya, Telijjawila, which I think points out the key problem with Cossde's POV. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem with reliable sources when it comes naming articles as been high lighted in [398]. Cossde (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Cossde has said the above even more clearly on my talk page, in this edit. In a way, this is good, because it clarifies that we can no longer rely on Cossde's analysis either. Cossde has here demonstrated that he is unwilling to work within the clear rules of Wikipedia wrt naming of places and organizations. There is never a case when we ignore RS because of some real world rationale. Wikipedia always follows RS to determine the names of things. We name the article and stick with a primary name when we can determine it, but when there are multiple names in RS, we are bound by WP:V and WP:NPOV to describe all other names that rise above WP:FRINGE (which I believe these do). I think that in addition to considering direct sanctions (block for editwarring) against Xe2oner, we may also want to consider a topic ban against Cossde for Sri Lankan schools, to last only until such time as he is willing to follow WP policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

As I have mentioned in [399] in Qwyrxian talk page I have no problem in use of RS. But as I pointed out [400] the RS in this case local news papers are inconsistent when it comes to naming schools, the same paper uses different names in different articles. Therefore what I say is that we can not depend on local news papers as RS for school namings even though they are RS in general terms. Cossde (talk) 07:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Just because User:Cossde chose BBC to ref the name of Royal College, Colombo:

• instead of the local news papers, doesn't automatically grant User:Cossde a wested right to stop or delete (Speedy deletion request per A7) other Sri Lankan schools that are funded by Government of Sri Lanka (or Sri Lankan Government) having word ROYAL in it's name. Colombo Royal College too is funded by the Government of Sri Lanka.
• doesn't mean that Royal College, Colombo is situated in the City of Westminster in United Kingdom. Real life Common sense.
• doesn't mean other Sri Lankan schools that has word ROYAL in it's name that has got absolutely zero references from BBC are insignificant, illegal or not prestigious and therfore not qualified to have a wikipedia article even with credible real life references. This is totally against Wikepedia's heart.
• if the name is ambiguous (User:Cossde self made rule to have only one school in Sri Lanka that has word ROYAL on it's name) in real life sources (ie: well established mainstream local news papers such as dailynews, Sunday Observer etc) then it must be ambiguous on Wikipedia (majority of Sri Lankan school articles do not have a refernce from BBC) too. Does that mean those schools are not significant to be on WP ?. Reliably sourced info can't be excluded to fulfill the self made rule of a single editor. This is totally agaist WP policy.
• whole of this argument or word war (what ever you call) about word ROYAL is self created by User:Cossde to fulfil and promote an individual's own (who is not being able to live with real life) agenda but it is an insult (others will have to seek consent from User:Cossde and then debate) to other intelligent WP editorial community as a whole. (Xe2oner (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC))

Well, the two of them are talking a little now on Talk:Royal College Colombo...the problem is that both of them are still edit warring across the spectrum of effected articles. Seriously, if no one else is going to act, I'm going to have to take an IAR restriction to WP:INVOLVED and block both of them, because this is very disruptive to the encyclopedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

As of writing, neither of them have edited in a while; if they start up again, I'll handle blocks. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is still going on. I've just commented at Talk:Royal College, Colombo#College name. Perhaps they do not realise that justifying a position on a controversial topic at the talk page does not give them some sort of right immediately to adjust the article to agree with their position? - Sitush (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Ouch. I'm blocking both of them for 31 hours to give them some time to cool it; I'm not exactly optimistic about them being able to, but it's worth a shot. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Sock puppets on Criticism of atheism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Slickarette (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Slickarette2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• IhategodYEah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

We've had a recent influx of socks on Criticism of atheism. They seem to pass WP:DUCK, so SPI is probably not necessary. I'm going to be requesting temporary semi protection on the article to stop the edit warring at RfPP ([401]), but if an uninvolved admin could take a look at the editors in question and take any steps they deem necessary, that would be helpful. I'll post a notice to all 3 shortly. All 3 notified.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Drmies has blocked these three usernames. -- Dianna (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

user:81.134.133.243 vandalism and mistaking the vandal cleaner as the vandal

• 81.134.133.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – On Grant Shapps ([402]):. 1. long-term vandalism.

  2. high-profile vandalism with real-world consequences - The vandalism of the page Grant Shapps was mentioned in the Guardian article in the last couple of weeks [403] where I was implicated as the vandal. I have clarified that this confusion is because I removed the vandalism! per my explanation User talk:Hackneymarsh#Grant Shapps. Widefox;talk 17:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• • This seems to be almost a year and a half stale - re-report if the IP resumes vandalising as blocks are preventative, not punitive. – Connormah(talk) 17:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC) (reply from AIV)

OK, sure. Considering the (national) newspaper report is new reporting this vandalism (and mentioning me), are you happy to leave at this, or wouldn't you be happier to escalate this to the oversight or whatever the correct place is for real-world consequences. Widefox;talk 18:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

This is not the appropriate venue for you either way. Take it to WP:ANI or something - this noticeboard is for persistent vandals and spammers only. –Connormah (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Widefox; talk 18:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

(Commenting from ANI) 150% of the stale on the vandalism front, so a block isn't necessary at the least. --Ks5stm (talk) ^{[alternative account of Ks0stm]} 21:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, just to spell this out....this is the chairman of the political party governing the UK that has falsely accused me of adding Freemasonry to his BLP, when in fact I removed this vandalism from his page, and this falsehood has been reported recently in a national newspaper. The claim by User:Hackneymarsh (Grant) that I added this is false, any backing from admins here?, or do I have to take this higher? Widefox; talk 22:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd recommend you talk directly to Jimbo. He has pretty good contacts with the British press ('cos he's rarely out of it) and is very well versed at dealing with the media and its reporting of Wikipedia. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, for the press side I'll talk to Jimbo. For the Wikipedia side before that, can you look at this accusation in this edit summary to establish that fact, thanks. Details here User talk:Hackneymarsh#Grant Shapps (and Talk:Grant Shapps#Grant Shapps WP:COI and The Guardian). Widefox; talk 09:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Greater Eureka Area-related hoaxes again

TheMege360 (talk · contribs), who got banned as a result of this thread two weeks ago, is back at it with a bunch of sockpuppets. After I blocked Alan Jesus Villarruel (talk · contribs) and Geico235 (talk · contribs) for creating Eureka metropolitan area and Greater Eureka Area respectively, Mike3GO (talk · contribs) left me this message. Mike3GO also created another Greater Eureka Area and had a lot of the same hoax subpages that TheMege360 did, so I went ahead and blocked him too. The trouble is, it's not immediately obvious to anybody who doesn't know about this user's behavior that these pages are hoaxes; I caught the first two while patrolling new pages, but someone else had approved the third one before I deleted it, and I'm bound to miss a few eventually if this keeps up. I think we may need to salt any of the titles related to the nonexistent Eureka metropolitan area, though he's already used three different titles and may very well use more. Does anyone have a better idea? TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe an edit filter, although Eureka, California is a town. --Rschen7754 05:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Since the Eureka-Arcata-Fortuna, CA micropolitan area exists (it's coextensive with Humboldt County), I'm also considering redirecting the titles to the Humboldt County article even though they're technically inacccurate, since at least then they would point to the right topic. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 07:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Would SPI for a sleeper check be worth it, you think? --Rschen7754 07:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Probably, especially since Mike3GO's account dates back to September 18. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 08:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

User: Gillespio repeated BLP violations

Over the past three days this newly created, SPA account, has been edit warring [404] on the insertion of un-sourced, libelous content that is in clear violation of WP:BLP. The issued was reported to WP:BLPN and I became involved.[405] This behavior has continued despite a warning on the article talk page [406] and on their user talk page.[407]. Now the situation has accelerated to include a personal attack on the editors who are trying to uphold policy."KEITHBOB AND BOROCK are Moonies, that erase information that is verifiable on page Tongil Foundation (moon cult") There may have been some recent events concerning In Jin Moon, but they have not made the news yet, per a Google news search by me. In the meantime, we need to deal with this User to protect Wikipedia until reliable sources are available. Thanks for your assistance.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for BLP violations. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Beat me to the touch. Will closely monitor and if the activity continues after this, I'll indef. – Connormah (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for attending to this. Peace!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Continued disruptive editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi all,

Have spent the last little while reverting increasingly vandalism-style edits to Catechism of the Catholic Church and Catechism by IP 184.0.251.217.

Would appreciate some admin assistance.

Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Given the lack of response to IP talk page comments a block seems in order. (IPs get the orange you have messages banner, right?) Nobody Ent 13:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

They do. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked 1 week for disruptive editing and failure to address issues raised on their talkpage. If they start to communicate and can give us assurances about their behavior then we can consider unblocking.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all for the quick responses. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Py0alb's conduct

I would like to ask for comments on the conduct and competence of Py0alb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and myself in a rather silly deletion dispute. And when I say competence I'm talking about the general functionality of Wikipedia, not their competence in cricket.

Recently I closed this FFD dicussion with a deletion because the image was not suited for fair use since it was clearly replaceable. Py0alb then contacted me with a request to replace the deleted image with a free one. My reply was this. Py0alb's response included some potshots like "you don't know nearly enough about cricket to be able to dispute either a) or b)" and "Probably the best thing for you to do now is to undelete the picture asap and apologise". They were then reminded of civility by GimliDotNet who happens to watch my user talk page. Gimli and I also explained here and here to Py0alb that the image had been deleted for failing the non-free-image criteria. The ensuing discussions can best be read at our mutual user talk pages but I would like to present following chronological diffs here:

• Py0alb to Gimli
• I explain fair use criteria to Py0alb
• Py0alb to Gimli
• Py0alb to me
• Py0alb to me

Meanwhile, JohnCD had deleted the talk page of said file where Py0alb had also contested the deletion. Says Py0alb to JohnCD "you are in violation of wp:consensus"-

• JohnCD replies and again explains the principle of replaceability for non-free media.
• I ask Py0alb to stop making a WP:POINT and point them at the undeletion request page, as others have done before. That is also where I announced that I wouldn't further comment on this at the user talk level.
• Py0alb disagrees and would like to see evidence
• At this reply I was already having a hard time explaining it once again and any more detailed to Py0alb.
• Py0alb accuses the involved editors of incompetence or intransigence.

I don't like the idea of bringing another drama to this stage but I think Py0alb should now stop the name calling when we all have actually tried to be helpful and explanative. De728631 (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why this is at ANI. Seemed to be a simple disagreement/misunderstanding about fair use. The new user seems to be frustrated by the deletion, which isn't uncommon for new users who don't fully understand our policies. I see that you've tried to explain the policy as best you can, but at this point it seems like the best way forward is to simply inform the user of their options (i.e. DRV, take it to a copyright noticeboard, etc.) and then move on and disengage from the discussion. ANI is for situations that require administrative action. The relevant administrative action in this case would be blocking, but I don't believe this new user deserves to be blocked for expressing their frustration. Perhaps this would be more appropriate for WP:WQA, although that doesn't even seem necessary to me in this case of a rather mild disagreement. -Scottywong| gossip _ 17:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The user has WP:COMPETENCE issues. They are not new, their first edits were 22 months ago. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 18:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, and WQA is no longer active that's why I brought it here. De728631 (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The editors initial comments also give the indication they had even then knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and had been editing under an IP for some time before registering the account. This is not a Newbie. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 18:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not a Newbie, indeed I do know the rules. This is what I have been complaining about: the rules for deleting a page listed at files for deletion state: "Files for deletion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which are unneeded. Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion have been raised. "

Objections had clearly been raised, and no consensus had been reached. In fact the last 2 comments were both in favour of keeping.

The why's and wherefore's of the whether the decision to delete the file was ultimately correct is irrelevant. The point is that the above policy was completely ignored. You can't just have editors ignoring policy because they can't be bothered to engage in attempting to reach consensus

I accept that the decision was the correct one. However the first person to come up with a coherent reason as to why this was the case was JohnCD. Neither GimliDotNet nor De728631 had adequately explained the reason for the deletion, instead they simply repeated "its already been explained", when in fact, it hadn't. Py0alb (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No, the rationale was explained in the deletion request, De's reasons for speedy delete and again with great patience by De on your talk page. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 19:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the point of having an argument over the subtleties of what is and isn't fair use. I have admitted I was mistaken. The bigger picture here is that the correct deletion procedure was completely ignored. Full stop. Py0alb (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No it wasn't, it was deleted under WP:CSD not WP:FFD GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 19:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Py0alb: there are two policies working here. One is the rules of FFD, and one is the rules of speedy deletion. In general, if a file qualifies for speedy deletion and is simultaneously under discussion at FFD, it can be immediately deleted and the FFD can be immediately closed. The FFD is no longer relevant once it is determined that the file qualifies for speedy deletion. So, there was no violation of policy or community norms here. If you disagree that the file qualified for speedy deletion, you can raise your argument at WP:DRV and see if anyone agrees with you. You'll want to look at the rules for speedy deletion, in particular criterion F9 (which is what was used in this case) before you consider opening a DRV thread on it. Otherwise, it seems like De728631 has considered your request and is not willing to undelete the file, so there is nothing else that can be gained from continuing the argument with him. -Scottywong| confess _ 19:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) You seem to have missed the fact that early closure is common when a criterion for speedy deletion applies. Apart from that, two editors alone cannot override the non-free content guideline in a deletion discussion. That is why this image had to be deleted although you and another editor spoke out against it. De728631 (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks Scotty, my bad if that is the exact policy. As it was on the FFD page, I simply read the rules at the top of that page and assumed they were the relevant set of procedures. Apologies for that. HOWEVER, I still think the effort to engage in discussion before deletion would have been much more sympathetic, consensus based, and less authoritarian editing practice, it is certainly what I would have done. Some editors need to consider how they come across when they delete other people's well-meaning work, and shouldn't then get so antagonistic and confrontational when people are understandably annoyed by their poor practice. Py0alb (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you follow your own advice an think before you accuse people of vandalism, tell them to stop editing because they ask you to be civil and telling people they don't know enough about cricket to be editing cricket based articles. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 19:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, the reason given for deletion I was disputing at that time was that the image showed nothing of importance that could be added to the article. Its entirely justifiable that you might actually need to know a little bit about the subject matter to be able to make that statement accurately. Sometimes in wikipedia a little knowledge of the subject matter is entirely necessary. There is a very good reason why I stick to editing articles I actually know something about Py0alb (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

"Closers should apply good judgment before speedily closing a discussion, since often it is best to allow the discussion to continue for the full seven days." I wonder why this advice is given? Perhaps it is to avoid the exact situation De's actions in this case precipitated.

I think it is time to close this case. Its hardly worthy of a newsflash: ignoring wikipedia editing guidelines may lead to editor conflict. Py0alb (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

De did use good judgement, it failed fair use, was copyrighted and as a result deleted. This was explained, you just didn't like it and decided to start posting vitriolic comments about editors conduct. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 05:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Py0alb, please indent your comments when you reply to make the conversation easier to follow. Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Legal threats

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wm55 (talk · contribs) left the same legal threat at my talk page (while logged out), and at an AfD (while logged in). Singularity42 (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

As a first step, Template:uw-legal applied to both user talk pages ([408] [409]). JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to comment on the deletion page, but after many attempts (a few hours later) I figured it out. Also, I am a female. I represent Phillip Nelson through my modeling agency. You can delete this page to your liking, but facts indicate that is more than enough proof and links about his careers and accomplishments. It is clear that you have a grudge against my client. I would like to thank you for showing me exactly how Wikipedia works so I can inform all of my current and future clients about your "standards." Also, I have submitted the comments (on the deletion forum) to my lawyer revolving the defamation of character on Phillip Nelson. I will inform Phillip Nelson about these issues, since he had no knowledge of this Wikipedia page being created. With that said, you (Wikipedia) does not have permission to use any of the images and signatures that were displayed on the Wikipedia page. If you do I will proceed against you with legal action. I do not condone Wikipedia, nor will I allow the mockery of my client. I request that you take opinionated judgments elsewhere. --Wm55 (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I have added many citations and reviewed numerous Wikipedia article on other celebrities pages. For example: Mandisa contain a total of 5 links (references), my client contains 34, yet her page is not being deleted or targeted? It is clear that there is a biased opinion and accusation about "Phillip Nelson." What kind of service monitors Wikipedia. They should indicate whether to not the page meets the criteria. No service should pass opinionated judgments. One of the previous reason this page was deleted was because op copyright issues. I then I re-wrote the article and submitted it only to have another "new" error conflict the page. Why is there always a different reason on each deletion. The moderators indicated it is written in a promotional tone, but look at Mariah Carey's page, I wrote the page in the same format and style. --Wm55 (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The first thing you need to do is read WP:NLT. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Followed by comprehending: "By clicking the 'Save page' button, you agree to the Terms of use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 23:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Wm55 blocked indef for legal threats. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The IP made a legal threat, too. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It was before the reg. user was blocked, and it probably can't edit for the next 24 anyway. But if it reiterates a legal threat, it needs a lengthy block. I have to say that the editor could have been handled a little more gently up front, but the legal threat is a show-stopper. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Drmies has just laid down a 31-hr block on the IP. I checked, the IP did not seem to be autoblocked. -- Dianna (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I know nuttin' 'bout no autoblocks. I just block when someone tells me to. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Is there a CU around who wouldn't mind a quick drive-by on that AfD? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The quacking is pretty loud. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I get that, even without a link to the guidelines. ;) Why not run and file a quick SPI? It might be helpful in the future. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wm55 JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AIV Backlog

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, there is a large backlog at WP:AIV, if a couple admin could take care of the backlog, it would be appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Sure thing--but note how many of the reports are denied... I guess sometimes it's all too easy to Twinkle someone to AIV. Drmies (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
• Really better to post this sort of thing at WP:AN, but in any event, the board is now empty.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP 12.124.208.106 : persistent vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

All 30 edits from this IP have been vandalism. I noticed this when I saw that the AMD chipset comparison page had been blanked out. I think an IP block is in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.169.144.239 (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:82.40.211.146

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

82.40.211.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I have come across an editor that is mass changing section titles from "music videos" to "short films" in some GA articles as seen here. I have asked the editor to stop as music videos and short films are not the same thing. I am more then willing to talk about it but the editor does not reply on there talk page, thus we have some disruptive editing that I am having trouble keeping up with.Moxy (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked 1 week for disruptive editing and failure to address issues raised on their talkpage. If they start to communicate and can give us assurances about their behavior then we can consider unblocking.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SPA/sockpuppets or meatpuppets in Race and Intelligence

Hi, the article Hans Eysenck was part of the arbitration Race and Intelligence.

I tryed to add a chapter about Eysencks far-right activitys. But now there is one account editwarring which is a bit peculiar. It's InigmaMan (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) a spa which trys to deny this far-right activitiys and is always agree with user Paul_Magnussen (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) a high frequent user and grammar expert.

InigmaMan knows the rules of WP best after 6 contribs. Both users use excessive the edit summaries. And seems to be a fan of Eysenck when you have a look at the talkpage. Now both users editwarring [410] in the article. Bit by bit they delate the far-right activitys. Editwarrin: E.g.: [411], [412], [413]

What to do in such a case? --WSC ^® 21:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Based on the super-sized warning on the article's talk page, I think you should report them to WP:AE (as POV WP:SPAs). Or file a WP:SPI if you're convinced they are the same person. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

And you should notify editors when reporting them to ANI. See instructions at the top of this page. Use {{ANI-notice}}. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

As a general note, I find it disconcerting that out of all the reviews for Eysencks' 2010 OUP biography (written by R. Buchanan) only the one by Chris Brand is linked in the Wikipedia article! Steven Rose might not be the most neutral commentator on R&I, but his review of that book was published in The Lancet. Andrew Winston also reviewed that book and said "But Buchanan has succeeded beautifully and Playing with Fire is an outstanding scholarly achievement" in doi:10.1002/jhbs.20488. William H. Tucker also reviewed it in Isis (journal) and said "Buchanan's treatment of his subject is commendably evenhanded." Yet, another review is doi:10.1177/0957154X11423888. Nassir Ghaemi also reviewed it and wrote "this biography does justice to him." [414] Why does the article on Eysencks need to be written from Chris Brand's POV? Tijfo098 (talk) 05:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Chris Brand was never mentioned in the discussion, as I remember. The last developement is, to overstate the autobiography of Eysenck himself: "Rebel with a cause". And delete some well sourced sentens, like this. --WSC ^® 11:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

No, but it's a good example of bias in that article, which has received the continuous attention of various easy-to-identify WP:SPAs for the past few years. One of them even created a stub for Eysenck's wife, Sybil B. G. Eysenck, the notability of whom is rather non-obvious from the text there. (I suppose being the co-editor-in-chief of Personality and Individual Differences, a journal Eysenck founded, but which is rather middling, is the WP:PROF anchor there.) Tijfo098 (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of "red" user with few contribs in the article eysenck and race and intelligence since the arabitation. Thats not amazing! But what is the best way to handle this problem? --WSC ^® 10:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• It certainly seems the case that a pair of editors have a very favorable view of Eysenck and is enforcing that on the article to the detriment of other views. One of them even claim to have known Eysenck personally, and is a grantee of the British Eugenics Society.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Request that an admin close a time expired RfC on Wikipedia talk:Article titles

An Rfc: Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC: RM is standard practice for reaching broad consensus for controversial page moves had the banner removed on 1 October by the RfC bot. The debate has long sine finished, but a new opinion was added since the closure. Could an uninvolved administrator please close this RfC. -- PBS (talk) 10:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a similar but earlier RfC here. [415] The beginning of it seems to have been re-archived starting at number 12 with "RM not required", and the later parts are now numbered 1-11, ending with "To see this RFC ended". The template was removed Sept. 16. [416] Neotarf (talk) 10:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Crimean Karaites - the move proposer has adjudicated on his own move request

A move request for the page Crimean Karaites was made by editor User:Kaz. The move is disputed. The discussion was difficult, and Kaz has refactored the discussion on the talk page. This has been the subject of previous discussions. No independent person has adjudicated on the move.

Today, Kaz has made the move himself. Being a cunning person, he has done it in two steps.[417],[418] (In general, a non-admin cannot revert a move back to a redirect page that has been edited.)--Toddy1 (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

What a mess. Needs to be reverted. And the redirect with "&" is unlikely, so delete. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked Kaz until they will assure an admin that they will stop refactoring the talk page comments of other users, and will not move the page anymore. I was going to move the page back, but it looks like Drmies did it already (indeed, I may have gotten in his way). If Drmies hasn't done it in a minute or two, I'll move the talk page back as well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
• [ec with Floq, here and elsewhere, haha.] What a mess indeed. I think Beeblebrox needs to bring his baseball bat. I've moved it back and will move-protect it. A proper discussion will need to be held--there is something that looks like a discussion, but that whole talk page is a mess and apparently the terms of the move discussion were changed while it was going on. I find it hard to figure out what's going on, but users need to stop (as Beeblebrox said) screwing around on that talk page. Floq, I got sidetracked by that redirect, which had the terms reversed; thanks for helping out. BTW, I fully support that block. Drmies (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Note that I typed most of that before I saw that Kaz was blocked; with my use of the plural ("users") I was trying to be diplomatic. For anyone interested, there's an unblock request. With commentary, of course. Drmies (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• I pinged (pang? pung?) Beeb to review the block in case there are subtleties I missed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you did. This was a good call. I never looked at the talkpage until today, and it's clear Kaz has some very strong opinions he's trying to push. I left a note on the article's talkpage; it somehow dawned on me he has a totally different topic in mind... or something like that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Frankly I surprised myself with how patient I was with all the foolishness on the talk page. I got tired of the whole mess a few days ago and walked away. I figured this level of ridiculousness would draw in some other unsuspecting admins soon enough, as these types of disputes always do. Not sure if they need WP:DR or Arbcom, it's a pretty obscure topic area and all the craziness on the talk page certainly doesn't help an outsider understand any of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

If it's ok butting in my 2 cents, I have been a quiet spectator at how things were developing on that page as it seemed to be close to my own areas of interest. Kaz looks like he might be Russian, and I think User:Seb az86556 has hit the nail on the head and looking through his talk page history he states he has some disabilities, so that might have something to do with it. Perhaps somehow he did not even realise that he has been writing about a totally different topic? I think Kaz needs an advocate though. His edits are disruptive, but perhaps all he needs is some kind of Buddy system since it also looks like from his contribution history that he has been looking for help in several different places. At the end of the day, he does seem to have linguistic talent and has brought fourth some very interesting and obscure references that western editors migh have had difficulty comming across. It seems therefore that an indefinite ban would be a disproportionate or heavy-handed response considering the quality of some of his contributions (at least he is not a vandal anyway) and his longstanding with WP. Remember WP does want to retain editors who have talent. At least we know h does not hold grudges [419] He just needs training on what is appropriate and what is not. Budo (talk) 12:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Several people have tried to help Kaz, myself included. In the end, we each must be accountable for our actions. In this case, ignorance can't be used as a justification, and "assuming good faith" doesn't mean signing a suicide pact. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

173.71.215.219

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:173.71.215.219, who persists in adding false/imaginary information to Little Einsteins and List of Justice League episodes is back, following the expiration of their last block. IP has been warned and blocked previously for the same behavior. Trivialist (talk) 03:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I put the IP on a 3 month vacation. In the future, AIV would be quicker for these types of things. – Connormah (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BLP deletion of Timeline of the Enron scandal, eyeball request

Link to this item also posted at BLP noticeboard.

Disclosure - I have expanded a few other Enron articles missing information, however no axe to grind, nor any editorial disputes. I noticed this article today and have never edited it. "Just in case" I give immediate consent to reverse my action.

Eyeballs appreciated on this page, just deleted under WP:BLPDEL. Considerable review and reluctance went into the action as it's a "last resort" to delete an encyclopedic article.

The problem is that the page is egregiously riddled with unsourced BLP vios and tone issues. There's no BLP violation in describing actions as fraudulent or criminal, provided this is sourced and neutrally described, but in this article the tone is also poor, one-sided, mostly uncited, and comes over as POV as well. So it isn't just a matter of adding cites, it's quite likely to need a near-total cleanup and stripping out BLP/NPOV vios - my impression is this implies virtually rewriting the article. The few cites it does have are completely inadequate; they support a few specific (often minor) points leaving the vast majority unreferenced. Even if it became cited it's not clear whether any of the text is sufficiently salvageable to keep a viable article due to the tone issues and negative one-sided views (and omission of balancing or necessary/salient information) which abounds.

Enron's case is also impossible to untangle from the individuals infamous for their role in the scandal. Numerous claims were made. Some were proven, some merely alleged, and a few matters may involve individuals never actually indicted with an offense or to whom "mud may stick"; the Enron articles can impact individuals linked to the case through untested or poor sourced claims, or failure to ensure NPOV, regardless of merit; BLP/NPOV is therefore even more crucial so we do not promulgate hearsay or hints as fact.

Examples

"Under NAME there was a long succession of business failures and missteps and according to many financial analysts, the company was swimming in debt." - cites? "Long succession" says whom? which "many" analysts? Any other views or was this the only significant view? "Several high level Enron execs "fall on their swords" for NAME" - a quote, but where from, how reliable, any other views on this characterization? "NAME seizes funds from the employee stock ownership program to buy back stock giving NAME2 a huge profit" - facts, not opinions. Cite? Other views? "Enron begins to make plans to have the computer processing brought back into house so they have more control." - says who? Control for/over what? As it stands, negative tone hinting at wrong but not giving details. "NAME is involved in the scandal and later is accused of cooking the books at Enron Energy Services and lying to Congress" - involved in what way? Or just generically "involved"? Who accused, was there a case, was he found innocent, according to whom "lying to congress"? Cites, other views, all missing. "NAME creates [company] (managed by NAME2) in an effort to hide debt and inflate profits" - according to whom was this done for that purpose? Exclusively for that purpose, or other purposes too (presumably a ruling will exist)? Cite? "NAME files a fraudulent [XYZ filing]" - numerous entries of this form, all uncited. Even if well attested these need citing. "NAME commits securities fraud by omitting bad news and lying to investors" - omitting what "bad news"? Lying in what way to investors? Lying according to whom? Other views? "NAME makes false presentation to investors" - false in what way, according to whom? Other views? "Enron executives get bonus checks for millions of dollars" - every one of them, or are we tarring some with brushes that are undeserved. Presumably this suggests every last executive? All wrongful? I have no idea, it's not cited.

And so on. The article is a list of points in this style, almost from first to last, and doesn't seem to have much or any context to explain the nuances, context or other salient information of the claims it makes. Several people are mentioned briefly, and often only for their negative acts or assertions, mostly uncited and no context or underlying facts or sources, and seemingly unbalanced. If I were writing "IHateEnron.com", this is how my timeline might look.

WP:BLP states: "Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed. If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion". WP:CSD covers deletion on "negative unsourced" grounds where needed. WP:DP lists BLP but doesn't offer useful alternatives or a set process where WP:BLP specifically does. WP:DGFA has little to offer.

I can't find any comfortable way to handle less than "delete and seek community discussion of what to do next". While it is arguable no harm is done, people were all guilty, page has been there ages etc, none of those are really very compelling BLP arguments. The page (as said) is primarily a list of negatives only, with minimal cites and a distinctly one sided very broad brush. At least one negative unsourced claim refers to person/s uncharged and nominally still in good standing. It's not being actively improved. It's hard to see how it is fixable without considerable work. It is also wrong to leave it up during that work as it stands, if ever done.

Options seem to be reverse and restore, formal discussion here or at AFD/DRV, or leave deleted. Whatever consensus says is fine by me. My concern is that it gets eyeballs, and that the article shouldn't be hanging round as a BLP matter until we know what we're doing with it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Wait, what? I spot checked a few of the items, and the information is all referenced in other articles. This seems like a bit of a stretch to delete this per BLPPROD. If you really want to, AFD would be a better venue; at least that would spur people to migrate the references over to the article. The article seems like a reasonable article, which serves its purpose, which is to lay out the timeline of the Enron thingy. I'm at a loss as to why this was so dangerous that it had to go NOW. --Jayron32 04:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

"In other articles". The cites need migrating over... and the tone, the balance, is that "in other articles too"? Sorry, but as it stands, it's just too far below par to simply decide the cites are in some other article somewhere else in Wikipedia, where the reader can also see what's accurate and NPOV if they care to look for it. They need to be got right in this article (slightly more concern may be appropriate due to the high profile of Enron, scope for conspiracy theories/hearsay to gain oxygen "from WIkipedia" if facts are one sided/POV, and importance of BLP), and this article isn't so easy to "quick fix" because it's the tone, POV and factual balance, not just citing, that's a problem.

Delete and seek eyeballs (per BLPDEL exactly) is more appropriate and useful than 10 days discussion and exposure. It has to be fixed one way or another, and AFD isn't for obviously notable topics with gross BLP issues. It cannot easily remain in mainspace "as is". Stubbing is often an option, but when an entire timeline article is a problem there wasn't anything less to stub to. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

But this wasn't unreferencable nor was it beyond the pale. Nothing I am seeing in the deleted article is particularly contentious, per se. The material seems mostly to be verifiable, rather easily, and let's face it, this is a timeline of some rather unseemly behavior. It isn't on the same scale, but I wouldn't expect the article about the Rwandan Genocide to be all warm fuzzies and butterflies either. Yes, I know this isn't murder, but it is a description of a scandal which put a lot of people in jail. It isn't a perfect article, but little at Wikipedia is, and it stands zero chance of being fixed while it is deleted. I really disagree, after looking it all over again, that anything there really stands out as BLP-violating material. I'm just not seeing it. Yes, it describes people who are a) alive and who b) did bad things. I'm not sure how else the article could be written. It could be better in many places, but we aren't going to include pictures of Ken Lay at his kids birthday party or singing karaoke just for balance... --Jayron32 05:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the biographical articles of individuals in this issue, you'll find them almost uniformly cited to the hilt, and any claims, allegations and statements carefully worded to ensure balance and context, and when facts are stated as facts, they are stated in an appropriate tone and cited. Now compare this article. The difference is great. We can do far better, we've done it on most Enron articles. Not this one. I think people pay a lot of attention to BLP in biographical articles, and sometimes forget the same is expected elsewhere when a living person is discussed - especially in the context of one of the largest financial criminal conspiracies of all time. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, how can anyone fix the referencing problems now that you've deleted it. Wikipedia is not better off without a decent article under the above title, and if the primary problem is referencing, that can be fixed, but not after you've deleted everything. I agree that attention needs to be brought in, and I also agree that WP:BLP applies everywhere. However, the problem doesn't get fixed if we delete the entire history of the article and simultaneously demand that it is fixed up to standards. It's completely impossible to solve any problems there may be while the article stands deleted. --Jayron32 16:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Pages deleted at AFD are at times userfied this way and for this exact purpose, by request of anyone willing to fix it, with the aim of reinstating once suitable, so it's quite common. 1/ Userfy the entire page history or copy the latest revision (1000+ admins) and NOINDEX it, 2/ fix issues taking any time needed, 3/ restore mainspace and update latest text or history merge as needed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC) (Crossref WP:USERFY#NO and my comment) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Updated - one editor (User:Legoktm) has already asked to get involved and has got a copy of the last revision to work on. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

From what I remember of the news at the time, those are fairly mild statements compared to what the media was reporting. I can't really answer these questions while the "NAME"s are redacted, but I can tell you that there were people at Arthur Andersen ordering hundreds of file boxes shredded to hide auditor collusion, an infamous earnings call where an analyst was called an "asshole" because he complained Enron wasn't publishing their balance sheet, several people went to jail and tens of thousands at Enron and Arthur Andersen lost their jobs. None of those statements seem at all out of line with that magnitude of a scandal. —Cupco 05:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The actions of AA, and the media and public outrage, are just citable information to consider covering in relevant articles and from reliable sources; no less, no more. None of these things gives us an excuse to provide uncited and one sided statements on Wikipedia, nor to tell the world "that's the timeline" or miss out significant balance or context unless there were no other significant views or context meriting mention. It's not an excuse for us to say "executives" got paid unless we're willing to say which executives, or whether it means all executives (cited). We don't say a person did something unethical unless we both cite a high quality source backing the claim, and also consider what other context and views might merit brief mention (with due weight) to ensure a balanced NPOV impression is given of what they actually did. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

FT2, perhaps your objection then is to the fact that this is an additional article on the series of events, and you think the undue emphasis. This is not something for you alone to decide, or at worst, it can do not more harm than the rest of our coverage. It is quite usual for summary or timeline or list articles to provide a lower density of citations than our primary articles--if anyone is unhappy with that they can do ahead and add the missing citations easily enough. You could have done so, Apparently the claims struck you as so extreme that they could not be allowed to exist ere even for a few minutes in the meanwhile. well, in my judgement, they're pretty straightforward and direct statements that fairly represent the historical record. None of this is hearsay, none of it goes beyond what i remember as the record. Some of it is not even BLP, "Enron executives get bonus checks for millions of dollars" needs checking whether it refers to every executive, but it probably does refer to everyone over a certain level. And it is not a BLP--it makes no allegations against anyone at all. You refer to tone: the tone os hard to judge from selective quotations of individual sentences--if you picked a random sample, it seems fair & appropriate; if what you picked was the worst of it, then the average would probably not be not as harsh about the company as the general judgment. BLP is not a magic wand for individual admins to do what they want to in any article where people are mentioned.FT2, would you rather restore it on the basis of a discussion here, or at deletion review? Or would you have any objection if I or someone else just does so, and cites it? Or do you want to simplify things by restoring it yourself, and, since you appear interested in he subject, cite it yourself to make up for the trouble you are causing? Unfortunately, such is the rigor of the rulers adopted at the time of the BLP hysteria that i can not do what I would ordinarily do at such a flagrant idiosyncratic use of admin power, and just go ahead and revert it. DGG ( talk ) 21:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

No need to guess, or suggest bad faith motives that I have any issue with the topic, the case, or any views on extremity of any issue you might guess at, beyond 1/ it is egregiously below WP:BLP, 2/ it needs improvement to comply with BLP to the point it would be ok to reintroduce to mainspace (ref: WP:BLPDEL), 3/ it's too substandard to leave lying around on the hope of eventualism. If BLP to you is "trouble others are causing" then we aren't on the same page here so no need to respond. If you want to check my contribs or deletions, you'll find almost none of this kind - this is a carefully considered concern, not a flamboyant whatever-bad-faith-DGG-thinks.

My concern is exactly what I said it was ("It has to be fixed one way or another, and AFD isn't for obviously notable topics with gross BLP issues" and "[BLP/NPOV] need to be got right in this article" and "[Other Enron articles] are almost uniformly cited to the hilt, and any claims, allegations and statements carefully worded to ensure balance and context... We can do far better [here]"). The rest of your comment is bad faith that I must have a POV, bad motive, want a magic wand, or be "causing trouble" by whatever. Reading first means you don't need to make bad faith guesses. If today, you or anyone else uses ancilliary Enron articles or otherwise improves what's there, so it meets BLPDEL, then this is a closed issue. So long as it isn't fixed, it's an open issue. Eventualism doesn't cut it here. Egregious BLP concerns don't linger indefinitely - fix or remove. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you're preparing for an ArbCom case over this. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Not shaking too much. I expect they (and most of the community) would accept it's good faith and BLP-reasonable, not part of any pattern in any way inappropriate, and appropriately worded. Any good-faith user or admin wishing to help has full and ready access to improve it, my (and any other admin's) fullest support and appreciation for doing so, and examples of perceived BLP points so they know exactly what sort of concerns to fix. Most sources surely exist elsewhere or are easily found, and someone who knows more than I do about it might be able to quickly identify if there are omitted significant views, balancing/nuancing information, or essential context or detail needed for NPV/BLP, and source those too. If it's improved today, it wouldn't have any reason not to go back into mainspace today.

As it happens one editor (User:Legoktm) has already asked for and been sent (WP:USERFY#NO) a copy to start fixing it - supplied to him/her with thanks as soon as request seen. Hopefully others will also do likewise/liaise, and it'll be back in just a day or so in good or at least minimal reasonable quality.

Deleted revision link 2012-08-17 01:47 for admin convenience FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I looked at cached version. The NAME redacted in the first several examples is the famous former Enron CEO who was convicted in 2006. He died of a heart attack while awaiting sentencing, so BLP doesn't apply to him. A lot of other stuff mentioned isn't sourced in the article, but has sourcing in other articles, so some cross-referencing could be added. I would agree that the article's tone is a bit more "energetic" than the Wikipedia norm. It might be sufficient to do a light referencing pass off-wiki, then restore to a talk page sandbox with {{noindex}} for collaborative editing until it's deemed ready for mainspace. I don't see anything that obviously needs to stay out of the history. 67.117.130.72 (talk) 04:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Something along those lines, yes. It needs a go-over for balancing/contexting material, missing cites, and copyediting to usual encyclopedic tone. There's nothing per se needing "removal". Its an improve not a remove. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

BLP doesn't apply? That never stopped admins in recent times. You see, they ran out of BLP material to arbitrarily delete a while back. The itch is still there though. Anyway, this looks resolved as someone is working on it in userspace. I suggest closing this WP:DRAMA thread. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Since this page was quite ancient (over ten years old), there is no way that it should be left a redlink, so I've recreated it as a redirect to Enron scandal. I would strongly suggest that some of the deleted edits be restored; see The Cunctator's edits in the earliest version, for example. Nyttend (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Numerous Problems with User:12.153.112.21

• 12.153.112.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since September 18, the anon user has repeatedly vandalized the List of AT&T U-verse channels article with incorrect and inaccurate information. My warning to the user was met with a snarky response that their edits were sourced. The source they were using was dated May of 2007. The user would later admit that "maybe true that I restored outdated information". The user continued to state that the "05/07" on the source was "not necessarily a date". The source information listed networks like Fox Reality Channel, The-N, AZN Television and others that are either under a new name or completely out of business. The "05/07" is clearly the month of May (05) and the year 2007 (07). Finally, I asked an admin to step in, that admin was User:A. B. who posted on the anon's talk page:

"Please make no further edits to any Wikipedia articles for now without first gaining consensus for them on the article talk pages (such as Talk:List of AT&T U-verse channels) from other, established editors. Otherwise, I or another administrator may block this account without further warning."

The user responded to this with a statement that showed that either the user clearly didn't understand what he was being told or didn't care (my case is the later). After I asked for page protection (and didn't receive) on the [[]] page, the user stated he would "merely get an account" to continue editing. He was warned of this by User:Gogo Dodo.

After User:A. B.'s warning to cease editing and seek consensus, the anon would several more inaccurate vandalism edits to the List of AT&T U-verse channels page, all of which were (again) reverted.

The user is now engaged in violations of WP:TPO by removing someone else's comments because they contain information about the company the IP is registered to. For the record, the IP 12.153.112.21 is registered to "The Answer Group" of North Lauderdale, Florida. The company is an outsourcing company for AT&T (among others).

It is also worth noting the user created the pseudo-IP sign-in account User:IP 12.153.112.21 (which has been blocked indef) and when called on this the anon responded "Whoop, sorry, missed that one."

This all adds up to a user who vandalizes articles, edit wars well beyond 3RR, deletes other user's posts, edits disruptively and refuses to respond to admin's calls for them to stop editing. I am requesting that the IP 12.153.112.21 be blocked for the long term and a range block is introduced. Since this is a company IP, the collaterial damage will be very minimal. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The users mentioned by name have been notified. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Um, read WP:VANDAL. The edits concerned don't look like "addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" to me - I'd suggest that WP:COMPETENCE is more of an issue here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I know WP:VANDAL pretty well (read it a couple times), but I agree with you that WP:COMPETENCE is waaay more of an issue. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Neutralhomer and this IP have been engaged in a long-running content dispute regarding sourcing for channels listed at

• List of AT&T U-verse channels

That article is now under consideration for deletion at:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels

My feelings about this whole dispute are summed up in this comment at the AfD:

"Delete - Masem beat me to it in nominating this article for deletion. As an administrator, I was recently drawn into a running dispute between 12.153.112.21 and Neutralhomer over what the current lineup was and what the sources should be. See Talk:List of AT&T U-verse channels, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Channel lineups in Wikipedia, User talk:A. B.#12.153.112.21, and User talk:12.153.112.21 (starting at September 2012). When I last signed off, I left wondering, "Isn't this what cable system online channel listings are for?" and "how can we have these articles when my own provider requires I enter my postal code to see my lineup since it changes as you go across town?" I'm sure there are guidelines and policies both to justify keeping and to justify deleting (WP:NOT vs we're not paper and we're the sum of all knowledge). As for me, I'm basing my comment on exasperation, common sense and sheer wonder at the energy invested in fighting over this stuff. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)"

I gather more has transpired in the last week but I have not kept up with it.

If you delete that stupid article, that may be the end of it. Note, that's not a reason to delete the article; I'm just making an observation.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

As I have stated at the AfD and will state here, I would like the article kept (even though I changed my !vote to "Delete" cause of the anon problems) and feel it could be made NOT#DIR appropriate, but I won't be upset if it is deleted. I have asked that the article be moved to my userspace so that maybe I can find a way to make it NOT#DIR appropriate and then reintroduce it, to which a couple admins have had no problem in doing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

This user is gaming the system. He has an IP, then has another id that is a near copy of his first IP id. Second, if you check his history(s) he shows signs of gaming the unblock requests and yet more gaming by re-creating the article in his workspace. Yes he removed my comments twice and yes I' advised him that wasn't allowed.

He was actually blocked at one point today, then unblocked by a different admin.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  20:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I will be happy to discuss any of these issues, which largely arise from misunderstandings and may thereby contain inaccurate statements. Incidentally, I have also reported Neutralhomer for edit warring because of constant pressing of the undo button without recognizing attempts to negotiate over content. I believe my report, like any of my edits, was presented in good faith. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you 'discuss the issue' of why you have continued to ignore admin A. B.'s instruction to "...make no further edits to any Wikipedia articles for now without first gaining consensus for them on the article talk pages"? [420]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• My initial edits did not note the historical nature of the source (which was the only static source I found in the article), but I have always affirmed that it should be included both because Wikipedia takes a historical approach and because it has had consensus to be in the article all this time. So I did misread a source.
• Wikipedia is about editing boldly. Yes, I took the admin's warning as a general counsel rather than a hard and fast rule, because good edits should speak for themselves. I made a few good edits to other articles and attempted to find a middle ground with Neutralhomer by inserting wholly unobjectionable edits to the disputed article, but these too were undo-button reverted. If taken literally, the warning would decide the content dispute by default, because Neutralhomer has stated that even simple addition of commented text for discussion is also vandalism. I don't believe a content dispute should be settled by automatically excluding one party from constructive edit cycles when the other party is not cooperating; so I took reasonable latitude with this warning, including my own self-restraint at the time in lieu of block. I could have taken this warning more literally but I don't believe that fits the spirit of Wikipedia. However, if an established editor reviews the content dispute and can demonstrate that my edits themselves are vandalism or anything other than an attempt to resolve a content dispute appropriately, I will heed such a warning more closely.
• I see nothing wrong with getting and using an account openly if an interesting page becomes semiprotected. The problem was that semiprotection was yet another invalid solution to a content dispute, which is why it didn't happen.
• I pursued ordinary oversight approaches for edits that took liberties with or made speculations about my identity, which include deleting the offending portion of the edit without comment. This approach has now been questioned, even though my first request for oversight was granted and the offending editor (Neutralhomer) warned not to waste oversighters' time by making such speculations.
• Yes, I also missed compliance with username policies on my first username attempts.
• I don't believe that userspace recreation of an article pending AFD is invalid; even Neutralhomer has asked for userfication.
• In short, a few good-faith errors do not amount to sanctionable activity. However I grant that I still have a lot to learn. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Since some users apparently still do not understand this and continue to bring up the earlier block, please allow me to clarify for any newcomers or those who seem to have trouble grasping the specifics. This user opened an account with an IP number as a username. As this is not permitted they were blocked from editing under that name. They came up with a few alternatives that were very silly and so were declined. The block was a username only soft block, meaning the blocking admin chose not to issue an autoblock on the underlying IP when blocking the named account. Earlier today, an admin missed this detail and blocked the IP for socking. When this was pointed out to them they acknowledged the block as an error and thanked me for rectifying it. I have no comment on the other issues but the previous block on the IP should not be held against them in any way as it was the result of an error. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• The previous erroneous block should not be held against this individual clearly - but what about their admission above to have ignored A. B.'s instruction to "...make no further edits to any Wikipedia articles for now without first gaining consensus"? The statement above from the IP that "I could have taken this warning more literally but I don't believe that fits the spirit of Wikipedia" basically amounts to an assertion that they can ignore instructions if they think they are in the right, from what I can see. "seek consensus for edits" is hardly an unreasonable instruction - it is basic Wikipedia practice. The IP is either incapable of understanding how Wikipedia works, or is gaming the system - either way, we'd be better off without them until this whole ridiculous saga is over and the article in question is deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Andy, "seek consensus before any mainspace edits", if taken literally, is a block. Making straightforward bold edits to unrelated articles, and attempting to seek consensus with recalcitrant editors by determining if even whitespace can be standardized without undo-button reversion, is in fact how Wikipedia works. A content dispute should not start by blocking an editor based on the other disputant's characterization of the editor, without independent content review. Thank you. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

"seek consensus before any mainspace edits", is an instruction to "seek consensus before any mainspace edits". That is all it is. It isn't an instruction to carry on without consensus because you don't like it. Anyway, I've said my piece - we are better off without this 'contributor', and hopefully we'll soon be rid of the article in question too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

...And then it was gone. List of AT&T U-verse channels has now been deleted as the obvious violation of WP:NOTDIR that it always was. Consensus has settled the matter. Can I suggest that this section now be closed, with no further action beyond pointing out to the IP and to any others edit-warring over the list that they have all been wasting their time - and that they would be well advised to avoid doing the same in future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

This matter is nowhere near settled. The AfD is a-whole-nother story. The Anon's action at the article that was the subject of that AfD is the matter and we need deal with 12.153.112.21, this outright ignoring of Wikipedia rules and policies and constant and consistent misunderstanding of those rules and policies. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, I see no evidence that the IP is softblocked, even in the block logs, it just says he's blocked. (With respect, I realize you can see more than I can , your a sysop, I'm not :) ). Far as I can tell he's blocked for edit warring, which he tried to evade by creating a similar name to his IP address. Further, even if he was blocked on that name only why use a name similar to his IP address. Further, his edit warring was a strong case in and of itself for a block. He's definetly not a new editor and is most definitely gaming the system. He's got a copy of the AT&T u-verse in his userspace as well as a sub-page right here .

I realize you stepped in when you thought a block was wrong, however, there was no consensus for overturning the block. In fact, just the opposite, that the unblock was inappropriate.. Any other unblock I've seen involves a discussion with consensus reached that the block can be un-done (NO policy anywhere states it has to be done that way, but it usually is, or at the very least the blocking admin is consulted and allowed time to respond. ) This didn't happen either . I'd suggest that the soft block is irrelevant. His behavior, then and now, shows that the block was warranted. Just my two cents  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  11:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The user is still waiting for a request for a name change: User talk:IP 12.153.112.21. Is that being held up while discussion about block status is being determined or is it just that the block discussion has pushed the request from the radar? -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you TheRedPenOfDoom. KoshVorlon, I received an account block for invalid username that has been properly appealed to a proper username, and I also received the brief erratic block in question, which was not for warring but for "Abusing multiple accounts: editing while named account is blocked". My appeal was properly accepted because an editor who has mischosen his first username is given a good-faith presumption and allowed to continue editing. (There was also a hasty, probably mistaken 1-day block for disruptive editing that I hardly noticed, but that was based on the allegations of the same one editor and expired without either appeal or review.) As I understand it a softblock means the account is blocked but not the IP, which is the case and is public information. I did not try to evade anything by creating an account, in fact I created it to be able to request an Oversight, which was granted (my later requests are still pending and are probably now mooted). My mistakes in creating the username were caused by not reading the username guide.

The channel guide's contortions, to which KoshVorlon has contributed, currently stand as resulting in a proper userfication, part of the history of another page, and a copypaste to a third page by another editor, all three of which are being debated for deletion. As noted in that discussion, several editors and two admins have accepted userfication of the original article history, which is sufficient for a userspace keep of that history. The other contortions will clear themselves out in time.

A simple unblock request does not need consensus, just a fresh admin. The AN thread linked does not show consensus to block either before or after the invalid block occurred; after the block and unblock, I grant that consensus could reinstate the block, but it didn't. In a case where the second admin sees an obvious logic flaw and the first admin immediately thanks the second one for unblocking, I believe any lack of interim consultation is irrelevant.

Charges of not being new and of gaming the system are unanswerable by definition; they are a double bind because either answer can be construed as entrenching oneself in proof of the charge (as can a nonanswer, or this answer itself). I only note that my actions (including a few admitted errors) are consistent with a good-faith belief that the content should be preserved at least in userspace and the content dispute should be heard on its merits. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

::: You're still evading the actual question , and you seem to be quite familiar with Wiki Markup and proceedure,despite being fairly new (and you edit as an IP addres only ), which leads to the most obvious question: Who's sock are you ?  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  17:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• @Kosh: I have outlined the chronology of what happened both here and at AN yet it is clear you still are not getting it. The account with a name similar to an IP was blocked on September 25. The erroneous socking block on the actual IP happened yesterday. This kind of confusion is in fact one of the reasons we do not allow users to use IP numbers as their account name, but I would have thought the repeated detailed explanations would have clarified the issue by now. Here is the actual block entry: 10:26, 21 September 2012 The Anome (talk | contribs | block) blocked IP 12.153.112.21 (talk | contribs) (autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of indefinite ({{uw-ublock}}) As you can see autoblock was disabled. This is not the default setting, the admin has to turn it off. In any event they have finally posted a username change request that is acceptable so the named account's block is being lifted. Again, I am only dealing with that end of it and have not reviewed the other issues. Any admin who finds them to be valid concerns is welcome to issue whatever blocks they feel are needed without worrying about appearing to overturn my actions. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks Beeblebrox! All, I have also presented evidence that Neutralhomer was edit warring to WP:AN3 (inviting review of my own edits as well of course), but that decision was deferred to this board. I'd appreciate a formal answer on either board please.
• I don't believe I've evaded KoshVorlon's question because I haven't been asked it. I have not edited with any accounts other than "12.153.112.21" or "IP 12.153.112.21" since I got here 2 months ago. I suppose it is possible I've edited previously on other topics, but neither confirming nor denying that would be helpful; policy explicitly permits alternate accounts to exist without accusations of socking and we assume good faith in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. Any other questions? 12.153.112.21 (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Beeblebrox - ok.. I admitt the "sock " bit was a bit much, I have nothing other than my own suspicions, and per WP:SOCK, that isn't enough, so I retract my sock comment. However, both his IP name and his name similar to an IP have worked on exactly the same article, both have moved that article to either a subpage a subpage on another user page, both have not made any changes in the article. Also, I'm not the only person that's expressed concerns about this IP's behavior.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  18:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks KoshVorlon. I have attempted to use the account only for segregated maintenance unusable by the IP, but I do see that the account itself did make a comment on the article's talk, and also restored the temporary copypaste draft of the article, which should not have been done by the account but by the IP. Neither account nor IP has moved anything; the IP made a temporary copypaste of the article (the use of which is now pretty much complete), and also requested the userfication. The IP has also made significant changes to the article now userfied, almost all of which have been reverted as vandalism (even whitespace edits), and has also made significant changes to the copypaste after copying it, which were used for syncing. If the content dispute itself can be settled with Neutralhomer, which has caused eight undo-button reverts of my content, all these workarounds would be unnecessary.

Oh, is now a good time to ask about the status on my reporting Neutralhomer for edit warring, or to call attention to Beeblebrox's response on AN that Neutralhomer's attempts to call my alleged employer were way over the top? I would really appreciate some suggestions, but as I've always said I wouldn't want anything that inappropriately excludes either editor from resolving the content dispute on its merits. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

is the redirection from User:the "good guy" to the IP user page appropriate? the user apparently has decided that they want to continue to edit pseudonymously from the IP on a normal basis, but will use a clearly identified alternate account to make maintainance edits that an IP cannot? -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Meeso

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Meeso has recently added external links to our articles on The Zeitgeist Movement, Peter Joseph, Jacque Fresco and The Venus Project from an essay (entitled The Twilight of Capitalism: On the Future of Revolutionary Socialism and the Zeitgeist Movement) on a personal website belonging to one 'Maysara Omar' [[421]. Having reverted this (twice) on WP:EL grounds, and then raised the matter on Meeso's talk page, I then received the following posting on my talk page:

i am really surprised to see this, several years ago we used to motivate one another and celebrate addition of new material here. but maybe the times have changed. Do you not have a brain of your own to see whether the essay to which the link leads, is relevant or not. i can understand if you went there, had a look, and then decided that it was irrelevant. but you did not even do that, simply because the essay is written by someone who is not as famous as Peter Joseph or Madonna or Obama, you decided that it is irrelevant. There was a time when jimmy wales was equally unknown or not so famous :) - in short, you are no more behaving with common sense or employing any degree of judgement, other than that which is ordained by WP policies that are used to regulate problematic content or behaviour. But what i want you to understand is that there is no problem here in the first place; it is you who is simply creating the problem in the first place, rejecting a source, an essay, without even having a look on it, simply because the name of the author is unknown to you. here is the link for others to see whether this is relevant or not:

Omar, Maysara. The Twilight of Capitalism: On the Future of Revolutionary Socialism and the Zeitgeist Movement, October 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meeso (talk • contribs) 14:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC) [422]

This seems to be a clear assertion that Meeso does not wish to conform to policy. I see that Meeso is now reverting deletion of the links by User:Ian.thomson too - time for a block? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Meeso used to sign as 'Maysara'... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The link he adds and the drive in adding them fails WP:ELNO 4 and 11. I was just going to file a report over at WP:AIV the way I would with a spamming SPA, because that's almost what he's starting to become. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, he's been blocked, but in light of ATG's PS, I'm seeing less of a reason to consider an unblock. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• maysarathustra.wordpress.com (*|search current)
  

Clearly spamming with a great dose of I didn't hear that. He has also used IPs to add this in places. If he keeps trying then we can see about getting the link blacklisted.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gun Powder Ma

Moved to WP:AN § Gun Powder Ma

 – Nobody Ent 20:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Caster Semenya

I believe this IP edit is a BLP violation. I'll delete. I don't know the procedures to hide it. Trackinfo (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:REVDEL --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 07:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It is simply an anagram. RevDel isn't required. Not particularly helpful nor harmful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, unless you look at the controversies surrounding that woman's life, you'll see where even an anagram can be a BLP violation. Not to say one way or another if this is REVDELETE-able, but you can't base the decision on whether or not a gross insult is not also an anagram of the person's name --Jayron32 13:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm just saying it was someone attempting to be clever with an anagram, no worse than the history of other BLPs. (take a gander at the history of Barak Obama for a reference point) Reverting was a perfectly valid action, I just don't think revdel is necessary. I certainly won't labor it if someone does, even if I don't see the need. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. If this is okay, there are some nice anagrams of “Ronald Wilson Reagan” I'd like to add.  :-) —Kerfuffler  horsemeat
forcemeat  13:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Google the name and the anagram and you'll discover it's been around since at least 2009, when presumably someone good with anagrams first noticed it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Old disgusting insults are still disgusting insults. --Jayron32 05:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The sources all seem to be blogs or other user input. The closest thing to a possibly usable source that I found is this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:KoreanSentry

KoreanSentry (talk · contribs) wrote "devious Japanese troll", "the userid is well-known troll", and "This is Wikipedia not some right wing Japanese movement site." in the Talk:Northeast Asia#Japanese trolls are editing map without approval.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I've already given the user a final warning, as well as a clear statement that the next such outburst will result in an indefinite block, since the user has a history of edit warring and POV pushing. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Long-term pattern of battleground behavior. And the only editor I've ever seen award themselves the anti-vandalism barnstar (twice!). NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. I would support indefinite block on that grounds. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 07:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I prefer ROPE. One more "troll" comment (or the like) and it's an indefinite block. I do wonder, though--Qwyrxian, what nationality/ethnicity/political affiliation/etc are you, with your clear admin abuse POV? But there is a definite pattern here of claims of trollishness, a battleground mentality, and a bunch of stalking edits of Phoenix7777. That was last year, and hope springs eternal, but if there are more voices here for an indefinite block I wouldn't stick my neck out for this user--I'm not sure I have seen a productive edit yet among their contributions. Drmies (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm a world citizen. Or maybe just a Wikipedian. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Supposing you got deported... Where would you go? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we'll moon him. —Kerfuffler  horsemeat
forcemeat  05:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Creation question

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have a question: How to create an article in english Wikipedia about Polandball without risk of deletion? Thanks.--Babelia (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:WIZARD. Nobody Ent 16:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You would have to take Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polandball to WP:DRV -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I undid a non-admin closure of this section which erroneously directed the user to the help desk. Since this article has such a tendentious history and was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Polandball, and is protected from recreation, WP:DRV is the only solution. Although, I believe the ultimate answer is: you cannot create an article on Polandball until you can prove it is notable, with sources. Otherwise, there is little chance of the article being recreated. Sorry. --64.85.215.243 (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

This item may be of interest. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 04:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Frammis4242

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Frammis4242 (talk · contribs) is a textbook example of a genre warrior. His every edit consists of changing genres in music articles to suit his own point of view. He removes sourced material en masse based solely on his own opinion of musical artists (see his edits to List of screamo bands on 24 August and today, and to List of emo artists today), changes genres in infoboxes without explanation or with nothing but POV rants, and inserts inappropriate personal commentary into articles ([423] [424]). His edits have been reverted by multiple editors including myself, and he has received numerous warnings on his talk page. In response he vandalized my userpage, left this little gem on my talk page, and created his userpage as an attack on me. In the first warning I gave him, I invited him to discuss the issues on article talk pages. Yet he has not done so, nor responded to any of the notices left on his talk page. In fact the only talk space edit he's made was to insult me on my talk page. It's pretty clear that this guy is not here to make constructive contributions, and isn't interested in any sort of reasonable discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm contemplating indeffing them for disruptive editing - the attacks and unwillingness to collaborate or respond to warnings all lead me to believe that there's a WP:COMPETENCE issue here and that this person in not able to edit in a constructive manner. Any thoughts from any others? – Connormah (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I must say, the trophy was pretty creative. If only Frammis4242 used their time for actual productive content. They actually did add two very important and formative bands to the list of screamo bands. The only problem was that they cited a user review on Sputnikmusic, but I replaced that with some decent sources. So they are capable of constructive content, they just seem unwilling to work with people. I can understand why they are upset, and the bureaucratic process of Wikipedia (yes, it is bureaucratic!) is often hard to work with, but that doesn't excuse vandalism and personal attacks. I think this user has had enough warnings, they know full well what they are doing now.

Although after this incident, I think Frammis4242's problem is that they are a disruptive troll, not a constructive editor and admin, otherwise their personal attacks could be excused. But I editorialize.--¿3family6 _contribs 20:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd support blocking as they haven't responded in any constructive way to the warnings and messages on his talk page. His behavior needs reigned in before he could collaborate here in a meaningful way.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say this isn't a new editor showing good faith as they show discontent for Wikipedia's policies within this edit, I think they have just proved themselves to be a Vandal. Jonjonjohny (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Jonjonjohny, it's "vandal," not "Vandal." Let's not equate the behavior of reasonable barbarians with such low tactics as those of a genre warrior. --¿3family6 _contribs 21:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeffed. The block can be lifted if the user understands the reasoning for the block and makes an attempt to contribute constructively and collaboratively. – Connormah (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We have a user continuing to go against consensus in the Bitcoin article.

He continues to change the symbols and abbreviations to non-verifiable ones.

Bitcoin — Preceding unsigned comment added by HowardStrong (talk • contribs) 21:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It is considered standard procedure to notify anyone who is involved in an ANI discussion that their name has popped up. Can I assume you mean User:Luke-Jr? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

He's talking about himself. ;) --Luke-Jr (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Both of you need to stop and read Wikipedia:Edit warring, you are both clearly engaged in an edit war, and have both violated the WP:3RR rule. Monty₈₄₅ 22:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• There are two reports against these two editors brought by a third editor at WP:ANEW. There's obviously problems with the editors and the article, but the reports themselves are malformed and incomplete, e.g., counting consecutive edits as reverts.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It appears they have reached a compromise and resolved the matter between themselves on the article talk page, which is always the goal. I suggest we leave it at that for now. Monty₈₄₅ 23:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed, isn't that nice/unusual? :-) Let's hope it sticks. I suppose I can decline the reports at ANEW based on the agreement reached.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It didn't stick, and I've commented on the article talk page and at ANEW. Based on the sequence, I'm inclined to block Howard but not Luke, but perhaps it's still possible not to block either.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm about to go off-wiki shortly. Luke proposed a precise change to the article. Howard agreed to it. Luke implemented the change exactly as proposed. Howard changed it. I've pointed this out to Howard, and his "excuse" effectively was he didn't look at the citations Luke proposed, even though they were right there on the talk page. The last comment I made on the article talk page was to "urge" Howard to self-revert and discuss. Howard hasn't commented, even though he was quick to comment before. However, he also hasn't made any other contributions to Wikipedia, so I can't be sure he's seen my last comment. Despite Howard breaching the agreement, Luke has left the article alone. Any admin can take any action they feel appropriate, now or later, but if Howard doesn't respond, I won't take any action myself now.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)